Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Bug Microsoft Upgrades

XP SP3 Crashes Some AMD Machines 267

Stony Stevenson alerts us to new information on the XP SP3-induced crashes that we discussed a few days back. Jesper Johansson, a former program manager for security policy at Microsoft, is maintaining an ongoing log and support site for users affected by any of several problems triggered by XP3. Machines using AMD hardware, particularly HP desktops, seem to have several modes of failure; others affect Intel machines.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XP SP3 Crashes Some AMD Machines

Comments Filter:
  • by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @10:51PM (#23373852) Journal
    I suppose now we have to wait until "Windows XP Service Pack 3" Service Pack 1 comes out before it becomes usable.
  • by Facetious ( 710885 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @10:54PM (#23373872) Journal
    You see, SP3 is actually a tool to make users believe they should upgrade to Vista. Relax, I'm just being Facetious.
    • Re:Ulterior motive (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:04PM (#23373946) Journal
      yeah, not so much upgrade to Vista as try to keep those on XP from fleeing Windows like rats on a sinking ship.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CSMatt ( 1175471 )
        Seems like these crashes would be doing the opposite.
        • Re:Ulterior motive (Score:4, Insightful)

          by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:33PM (#23374158) Journal
          my point was that SP3 was supposed to try to retain current windows users in the face of vista's failure to impress. SP3 instead seems to be driving people away at least until/if it gets fixed.
          • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @12:22AM (#23374448) Journal
            Quite simply, if MS wanted to keep customers they would create a product with zero problems (or as close as they can get) and push it out at a VERY competitive price. That is how the marketplace is supposed to work. When your namebrand is trashed, you have to compete extra hard. MS seems unwilling to do this, or at least has failed to show that they are trying to do so.

            That might just be bad business decisions on their part, but whether it was malicious or stupidity does not matter. In either case the end result is that MS loses more customers. Nobody wanted to hear that MS was losing or soon to be dead a year ago when predictions were rife, but here it is, in your face. MS is consistently failing to either impress or produce quality product. The dragon^H^H^H^H^Hcathedral is near death... is it time for the penny market to celebrate?

            Not on your life, it will be time to celebrate when the dried bones of the dragon are used up as party favors. Until then, it is time to keep competing aggressively, and nothing short of that will do. Competition, not patents, drives innovation. Innovation will bring us secure computing at home. A kind of secure that behaves friendly to the end user.

            Now, am I bashing MS for pleasure? No, it is because MS products are in their deathbed and nothing short of a complete restart will get them out of it. It does not appear that MS will do that. There is nothing in current or near future activity that shows MS will do anything different from what got them in the death bed to start with. The beast is dieing. There is nothing more to say.

            Call that a troll if you will, but the truth hurts sometimes. Do I want it to die? NO! Emphatically NO!!!! Without competition, quality dies. Would I like to see MS slide into a comfortable second place? Yes.... and the reasons are simple, just ask any Linux fanboi for them.

            SP3 failed utterly in the face of the current market that MS faces. There is NO excuse for that in business. If you believe the art of war extends to business, MS deserves to be beheaded ungracefully. That is how business goes, so don't bother telling me that I'm a troll.
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by kestasjk ( 933987 )

              No, it is because MS products are in their deathbed and nothing short of a complete restart will get them out of it.

              SP3 has worked fine here.. Hardly noticed a difference (the security policy explanations were nice though), and XP has been great in general.

              If they were writing for a limited set of machines I'm sure XP and Vista wouldn't face these hardware specific problems, but they're writing for use by as many people as possible, with as few problems as possible, and pushing it out at a competitive price.

              That is how the marketplace is supposed to work, and it looks like it's working fine for MS (fanatic /. stor

              • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @01:50AM (#23374888) Journal
                I'm guessing that you missed the news that if you are top dog, you can't afford to mess up?

                It was not JUST tablet users. Read some news would you! IE8 beta users were screwed too. MS has had decades at working with EVERY kind of hardware. It's fscking lame to call that bluff now. F/OSS software might be able to still do that, but MS has NO excuse. period. for any reason. They have been working with this hardware FOR_EVER! I don't know how to say that strongly enough. Fuck! The hardware has been designed around the GD software. There is NO excuse. Business is business. Get it right or fail... this look like one more fail in the bag of fail that MS is filling up fairly fast. From a pure business pundit prospective, MS failed here. Keep drinking the coolaid!
                • by CSMatt ( 1175471 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @04:01AM (#23375364)
                  And just how many business users are using IE8?

                  Hopefully none. A smart business knows better than to run beta software for their mission-critical tasks.

                  A smart business would also know never to upgrade their systems the very moment an upgrade to a piece of software comes out. It's much smarter to wait a few weeks for the developers to figure out the problems that slipped by unnoticed during the beta stages due to fewer users. This is true for both free software and proprietary software. I remember having some nasty problems when I upgraded to the last two Ubuntu releases the day they came out. Now I'm waiting for Hardy to "stabilize" because I now know not to run software that's just been released. It's true that what we are talking about is just a service pack, but based on what happened when SP2 came out the public really should have expected Microsoft's future service packs to do just as much under-the-hood tinkering as SP2 did.

                  Yes, it is partially Microsoft's fault for not warning users on Automatic Updates that SP3 is still brand new and could potentially cause problems, but unless you never had problems with SP2 or were not in charge of a Windows XP machine during that time, this should have been seen from a mile away.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by AndGodSed ( 968378 )

                "Some Tablet users are complaining about Feisty Fawn! Linux Sux!"

                Never mind that there has been TWO RELEASES of Ubuntu since then, with another on the way in six months.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by GigaplexNZ ( 1233886 )

              Quite simply, if MS wanted to keep customers they would create a product with zero problems (or as close as they can get) and push it out at a VERY competitive price.
              That simple, huh?
            • by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) * on Monday May 12, 2008 @10:50AM (#23378130) Homepage Journal
              SP3 failed utterly in the face of the current market that MS faces.

              While I agree with most of what you said, I'm not sure how SP3 "fails utterly". There have been far fewer problems with SP3 than previous service packs. Why, SP2, which is generally regarded as a Very Good Thing (and with good reason) broke a lot more software and machines than SP3 seems to be doing.

              I'm usually the first to bash Microsoft when they deserve it, which is 99.9% of the time, but I cannot agree with the assessment that SP3 "fails".

              Microsoft in general is "failing utterly" in the current market, but as far as I'm concerned, XP is doing just fine.
            • 1) You are assuming there is an OS market to create a competitive price against, when in fact the business choices are M$, M$ and, well, M$ (unless you count those bit players: Unix, Linux, and Apple).

              2) You are assuming and intelligent rational buyer's market, when there is only currently a seller's market (ie in the words of my infinitely wise toddler "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit").

              The MS Spin machine will, and has already begun to, spin a new myth around SP3 to dazzle and disarm, and t
    • by doomy ( 7461 )
      I thought DirectX 10 was supposed to do this.
    • by WaroDaBeast ( 1211048 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @12:54AM (#23374612)
      No, no, and no again. SP3 is meant to prepare XP users to an unstable environment.
  • by M1rth ( 790840 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:01PM (#23373920)
    Headline singles out AMD machines, body indicates that AMD and Intel are equally affected by various modes of crash. Sounds like someone's trying to drum down AMD stock or something... nah, we'd never have a processor partisan writing for Slash would we?
  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:03PM (#23373940)
    Rename the topic to say INTEL drivers on HP AMD systems is the cause.
    The topic you have makes AMD look bad.

    Why is HP useing the same basic image for there amd and intel systems?

    What other driver bloat is in OEM systems?

    Is INTEL coding there drivers to mess up AMD systems?

    AMD legal should take a look at this.

    I have SP3 running on my AMD right now and it's works 100%
    • It's all in the eye of the beholder. To me, the topic says: "M$ can't make software for other architectures than intel." or; "M$ can't make software. Period." Hopefully people read a lot more than just topics though.
    • HP should NOT be using the same image for their Intel and AMD-based systems. There's always one for the Intel systems and one for AMD systems of each type (So, a DV2000 laptop has two generic system images, one for Intel-based and one for AMD-based. It's almost ALWAYS been this way.)

      By the way, this appears to be Microsoft's problem, since HP maintains and is responsible for their own recovery images (all customized for each model and revision of laptop) and their own drivers.
      • What gets me is these folks are smart enough to hear about SP3, find and download SP3, and yet they aren't smart enough to make a disc image before they install a giant service pack that could bone their system? It isn't like there aren't several [excelcia.org] free [easeus.com] alternatives [partitionlogic.org.uk] to choose from, as well as a trial of Acronis [acronis.com] which I use.

        Why anyone would risk the royal PITA of having their machine completely boned and having to spend hours or even days restoring everything to its original state when a simple disc image

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Korin43 ( 881732 )
          Why bother? It's just as fast to reinstall Windows (and you can do it on the same partition, so all you lose are a few settings).
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        HP should NOT be using the same image for their Intel and AMD-based systems.
        Why not? Shouldn't Windows be flexible enough to use a single system image for commonly available hardware?

        First, this configuration obviously worked fine for SP2. Second, Microsoft controls the driver certification process, so they should be able to ensure that Intel drivers aren't loading on an AMD system. This is a pretty minor fuckup, but it's firmly in MS's lap.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )
          "Why not? Shouldn't Windows be flexible enough to use a single system image for commonly available hardware?"

          Sadly, no. Due to HP's design methodology, the differences between Intel and AMD based systems are vast. Almost none of the hardware is common, minus the video and perhaps the sound. AMD laptops generally use a Broadcom wireless adapter while Intel uses an Intel-branded wireless adapter, for example. Even the SATA controllers use different drivers (different chipsets, after all,) so even more spec
          • by IntlHarvester ( 11985 ) * on Monday May 12, 2008 @03:27AM (#23375254) Journal
            I guess I don't understand your POV. Just because you had to sit on it for work doesn't mean that's the right way to proceed. All these things have vendor strings and PCI IDs, Windows should be smart enough to ignore irrelevant drivers. Linux boots on all this stuff with a single kernel after all.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              You can do it - if you make sure that you're building an install image with the correct OEM drivers on board, booting with the generic HAL, etc. It sounds like HP isn't doing what they'd need to do to build a actual "universal" image. Hardly surprising - back when we used to buy HP where I work, HP was of little help preparing a custom system image for 500+ identical business computers. They just weren't set up to deal with it - we had to send an employee to HP. Contrast that with IBM/Lenovo - they actually
      • by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @04:38AM (#23375494)

        HP should NOT be using the same image for their Intel and AMD-based systems.
        In that case, I trust you'll forgive me asking this question:

        What was the point in all the years spent by the PC industry on "Plug & Play", implementing ideas like unique IDs allocated by a manufacturer to their hardware devices and an operating system which can scan these IDs and choose drivers accordingly?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yeah, sensationalism as usual, I've got SP3 running perfectly on an AMD and an Intel system, both with no problems and the same as they were with SP2.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eukariote ( 881204 )
      This story making the rounds with unwarranted AMD-user-scaring headlines is typical of the kind of FUD that Intel shills have been spreading. There is a gaggle of them here on slashdot and most other blogs and boards of any reach. Most review sites with any impact have been bought and paid for.
  • by PerfectSmurf ( 882935 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:04PM (#23373948)
    I installed SP3 Sunday and three problems immediately cropped up that I haven't seen in the years since I first installed XP. First is a stop, BAD_POOL_POINTER 0x00000019 (0x00000020,0x8a231120, 0x8a231158, 0x1a070000). Second is a problem with the HID service not starting. Third is that PaintShop Pro (V7) now cancels all attempt to enter standby mode. Sigh...

  • Lovely. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mr. Ksoft ( 975875 )
    I'm on both an AMD machine and an HP desktop. Good thing I chose to wait a few months before SP3ing myself. (As for my friend, he didn't and now I'm the one laughing)
  • Who wrote this article? If you combine the headline and the last setence is basically says "SP3 screwes up some AMD and Intel systems." Gee, you think? Totally biased against AMD if you ask me. You don't just kinda mention "oh yeah, it breaks some intel ones too" at the very end after making it sound like AMD has some huge problem.
  • Wintel Conspiracy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chunk08 ( 1229574 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:08PM (#23373982) Journal
    Too bad my submission from monday didn't make it, it would have made for some interesting conspiracy theories. AMD and Intel have made the briefs in their anti-trust case public (With heavy censorship^Wediting). One of AMD's contentions is that Intel's compiler is actually written to reduce speed and stability of programs it compiles when said programs are run on AMD processors.

    <conspiracy>Maybe Microsoft has a deal with Intel to do the same with SP3 (and other Windows versions/SPs?) or they use Intel's compiler.</conspiracy>

    Worth considering.
  • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:08PM (#23373984) Journal
    I imaged my whole Windows partition, in preparation for the horrible instability that would be SP3. I then took a deep breath, and started the download, figuring it would take several hours.

    It went reasonably quickly, had exactly one reboot (which brought me fully up to date; no "critical updates" after that), and then ran solidly while I played Portal for another five or six hours.

    I was almost disappointed.

    It was an Intel machine, though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 )
      And your point is?

      Really: no-one has suggested that all machines have this problem after SP3 is installed, so one anecdote of a machine that does not suffer any problems is pointless.
      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
        His point is that Microsoft updates, formerly a source of great excitement, seem to be becoming disappointingly boring. Just like those OTHER OSes.

        Seems now it's not enough just to run Windows, you have to buy an HP as well.
      • I didn't have a point.

        I got modded "funny" anyway. Cool!
  • by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:08PM (#23373988)
    As I understand it, this only impacts Windows XP users who are running computers with AMD or Intel processors. There is no evidence of SP3 introducing problems on XP machines with alternative architectures.
    • by Aranykai ( 1053846 ) <slgonser@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:16PM (#23374036)
      Yeah, Im running sp3 on my RISC system with no problems whatsoever.

      Thats what all you fanboy AMD and Intel people deserve.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by chunk08 ( 1229574 )
      Who actually runs Windows XP on "alternative architectures." I am genuinely interested. If I could run a PowerPC PC, I would.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Khyber ( 864651 )
      Just how many "alternative architectures" does XP run on? Last I checked, none. I think Microsoft's multi-architecture support for their main operating systems died after NT4 (along with support for DEC's Alpha) and they went x86. Looking at Microsoft's support page [microsoft.com], they say Pentium or compatible processor, so that means x86 only.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by afidel ( 530433 )
        Windows 2000 had Alpha support up until RTM. Windows 2003 and XP supports x64 and 2003 supports Itanium. The NT codebase is actually fairly portable and there are internal MS projects around running it on various architectures just to make sure they could move with the market if there was ever a huge move off x86/x64 (as unlikely as that is).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ShadowFalls ( 991965 )
      My Via C3 system is running fantastic with XP SP3. Take that AMD and Intel!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pimpimpim ( 811140 )
      Actually, I run XP on a Via Cyrix, and some HP Printer software wouldn't want to install because they apparently check for either AMD or Intel CPUs literally, not for x86 compatibility. Bonus for HP is that the free chat-based support (most likely from an Indian called "Bob") was excellent, and he told me I could press something like shift-ctrl and then click the cancel button to proceed with the install for my system.

      I had similar problems with installing silverlight, btw "you are not running a supported

  • Isn't the original purpose of a service pack to add reliability, rather than take it away?

    One would think that by SP3 there would only the most minor bugs left to close, but instead giant new ones are opened. Machines that become unbootable? That's pre-alpha quality stuff.

    Something is badly broken with their methodology... no wonder they were trying to do a people grab at Yahoo, the higher ups are probably pulling their hair out by now trying to figure out how to fix their organizational problem and maybe
  • by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:36PM (#23374174)
    wow what a porker. sp3 crashes AMD based systems, then when you read on it's intel drivers installed on AMD systems that causes the problems.

    not exactly a cut and dry SP3 problem and certainly not an AMD or INTEL issue at all.

    people who write this crap need to all be thrown in a cage and be made to rip each other apart.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jamesh ( 87723 )

      people who write this crap need to all be thrown in a cage and be made to rip each other apart.

      <chant>Two journalists enter. One journalist leaves.</chant>

      Actually I'd like to see that as a form of conflict resolution for almost all arguments on slashdot.
  • by stox ( 131684 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:37PM (#23374176) Homepage
    "SP3 causes the computer to crash during boot, and Windows XP, by default, is set up to automatically reboot when it crashes. That is why you end up in the endless rebooting scenario."

    Nope, no relation at all. After all, crashing is perfectly normal.
  • by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:43PM (#23374206)
    I'm waiting for Service Pack 3.11
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
      ...but that would only be for XP Workgroups, what about Domain users?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I actually found Windows 3.11 to be a very usable operating system. Namely, because if it froze, I could CTRL+ALT+DEL, the system would actually reboot, and then it would be usable again.
  • OK so far (Score:3, Informative)

    by willow ( 19698 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:44PM (#23374212)
    One data point. Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe w/ 1502 BIOS version and an AMD 64 X2 4600+ is OK so far.
    • True. I downloaded the first patch manually. (one which used to crash MS Retail Mgmt System).
      It works fine on my M2N-E-SLI with AMD 64 X2 4300+.
  • Microsoft: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:45PM (#23374224)

    The World is our Beta Tester.

    • The World is our Beta Tester.

      Well of course it is.

      There is no standard Windows system.

      HP's custom OEM image installed an Intel system file on AMD PCs. Not exactly recommended practice.

  • by Trollificus ( 253741 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:51PM (#23374254) Journal
    I got hit by this bug when the patch went live last week on Windowsupdate. As the article states, the solution in was to disable intelppm.sys from safemode. It's a lot quicker if you do it using autoruns [microsoft.com]. It's too bad this article wasn't posted last week. It would have saved me a lot of trouble shooting time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by biobogonics ( 513416 )
      I got hit by this bug when the patch went live last week on Windowsupdate. As the article states, the solution in was to disable intelppm.sys from safemode. It's a lot quicker if you do it using autoruns. It's too bad this article wasn't posted last week. It would have saved me a lot of trouble shooting time.

      This bit me today as I manually went though Windows Update on one of my office's machines, an older Compaq Presario with an AMD processor. Not knowing about the simple 1 line of instructions that would
  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @11:55PM (#23374266) Journal
    All in all, it still seems to be faring much better than Vista SP1. For what it's worth, the latter is still disabled on Windows Update for one of my PCs (because of "incompatible hardware or drivers").
  • SP3 works fine for me but it removed my address bar from the taskbar. MS claim somewhere its a compliance thing but that's totally BS as vista has the address bar and the address bar in SP2 will load the default browser (ie firefox).

    There are work arounds and third party patches - but this is just annoying.
  • HP SP2 problems too (Score:3, Informative)

    by cojsl ( 694820 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @12:46AM (#23374570) Homepage
    I recall some HP machines had serious problems (driver related?) with installing XP2 too.
  • by fragMasterFlash ( 989911 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @01:30AM (#23374800)
    Anyone who build Windows XP images that are rolled out onto both AMD and Intel machines should have long ago learned about the stop code 0x0000007E perils that come from the intelppm driver. The root of all evil here is that processors are not plug and play devices as far as XP is concerned and their associated drivers are hardcoded to start at boot time. Why the hell Microsoft has not taken the time to update intelppm.sys to check for a GenuineIntel x86 Family XX Model YY Stepping ZZ ID before touching HW specific registers is a mystery to me (I hope the conspiricy theorists amongst you will regale me with much food for thought).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmauro ( 32523 )
      Why would it be a conspiracy when being lazy explains it so much better.
  • Screen rotation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wayne247 ( 183933 ) <slashdot@laurent.ca> on Monday May 12, 2008 @02:35AM (#23375044) Homepage
    That's not the only issue with SP3. One of my monitors is rotated 90 degrees (widescreen that I use upright), thanks to the ATI driver's rotate function.

    After rebooting following SP3 install, all my monitors went completely berzerk. They fell back to 4 bits colors (I didn't even know there WAS a 4 bit mode), with some weird effects. Also, rotation was not possible.

    It took me about an hour to find a way to bring back monitors to decent resolution and colors. I still couldn't get rotation to work, no matter how hard I tried (Combination of card, drivers, update from ATI, etc)

    Then finally I google a bit and found a few forums with user complaints of the same type of problem. So I uninstalled SP3, rebooted, and voilà, everything back to normal.

    Needless to say, I promply logged back into WSUS and removed SP3 from the approved for installed list.

  • Bullshit! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Daimanta ( 1140543 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @06:39AM (#23375962) Journal
    I'm running Windows XP SP 3 on an AMD machine and I'm doing just fi

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!