Windows Vista SP1 Meeting Sour Reception In Places

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."

Comments

Re:there is something I dont get...

[nbannerman]

You can manually search for new updates now and it'll appear and can be manually installed - however the phased process (3 updates total I think) will automatically occur next month.

Re:A bad thing?

[toleraen]

As explained here, and detailed in this knowledge base, MS actually had a halfway decent reason behind it.

If Microsoft offered it, people would.

[khasim]

If you want that, download it from microsoft.com yourself.

And if Microsoft offered that option, people would.

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.

[Your.Master]

Right here buddy: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=B0C7136D-5EBB-413B-89C9-CB3D06D12674&displaylang=en

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.

Re:Reasons SP1 doesn't appear in Windows Update

[jrronimo]

There are 8 reasons SP1 may not appear if you check WU:
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

Re:A bad thing?

[Your.Master]

I'm sure they deem things incompatible by ouija board.

You can check the complete list of incompatible drivers here (under "Method for Cause 5"):

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=948343

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.

That IS the service pack.

[khasim]

Here, let me quote that page for you. :D

SP1 addresses specific reliability and performance issues, supports new types of hardware, and adds support for several emerging standards.

Unless you have an unsupported device on your computer in which case this update will not be applied.

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. :D

Re:Well SP1 saved me some crucial time this mornin

[bigstrat2003]

Was this not in Vista SP0? I'd be astonished if it wasn't, because that was in Windows XP.

Re:How about ...

[ashridah]

The problem there is that Microsoft never had a chance to lock people into hardware in the first place (and probably never wanted to, but i don't know anything about their motives back in the early days).

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 ...

[ashridah]

And SP1 added a truckload more, including updated ones (hence the size of the standalone update).

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:How about ...

[ashridah]

Kernel data structure changes.

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 for an example of this. It's a really painful thing, and really makes me feel sorry for people like Raymond Chen 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:I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[billcopc]

Red Hat ?

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:I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[xtracto]

at Ubuntu could do it

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".

[hey!]

Well, Ubuntu isn't exactly great when it comes to things common laptop sound cards, or certain popular USB wi-fi adapters. If you're lucky, it just works, but the same goes for Vista. But Ubuntu is not particularly good among Linux ditros when it comes to hardware support. I can attest this from personal experience.

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.