Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
For those of you that do this to your parents and relatives for easier support.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
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
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
12 blog commentors claim to have had problems installing SP1 and that's newsworthy? I'd be curious to see their system configuration, as I'm so far nine for nine successful installs on various system configurations with no issues whatsoever (in fact, some systems had issues corrected).
Dozens? Seriously? So that represents, what, about .0005% of users installing SP1?
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."
Install and just disable the device?
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.
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.
throw new NoSignatureException();
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I was lambasted last time I made a PRO Vista/SP1 comment.
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.
"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.
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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?
The difference is when a Linux update goes haywire, the user is blamed.
When a Windows update goes haywire, Microsoft is blamed.
This site grew out of a theme site for the Enlightenment window manager for X Windows on *nix operating systems so I don't really know what you are expecting. Also a large number of people here are computer or other technical professionals that work on a wide range on platforms and like to complain about the weakest link. That experience gives you the bias. In a comparison between Vista and WinME the newer product will win every time but it is not so clear cut between Vista and Win2k let alone comparisons between Vista and other systems. The three or four years of "Longhorn is better than everything else" coming out of Redmond also generated a bit of a backlash when the result was so disappointing it didn't even have complete support for the Pentium Pro and later processors. A 2GB memory ceiling is ridiculous for the sort of applications even home users want to run in these days of digital video and audio.
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.
I've been using Vista for a while now (I need to know it for work) and have followed the SP1 saga for some time - and from a lot of the posts above, I seem to be one of very few...
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)
I haven't seen any news stories yet that focus on the numerous Vista users, myself included, who are happy with SP1.
I installed SP1 last night. Played Call of Duty 4 for a few hours. Play a little WOW, then played some World in Conflict before I went to bed.
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.
More /. biased nonsense.
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.
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.
"Ford also expects money for their products. If you never change the oil and the engine blows up, that's ford's problem? That's pretty sad if that is the best reasoning you can come up with."
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.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
+# Funny!? This comment should be +5 Insightful!
The Mods must be crazy!
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
I think that you are being way too simplistic with your car analogy in terms of the items you change on the car... It would be more equated to a car company no longer supporting your warranty if you decided to replace the car's computer chip with one that doesn't regulate torque as much and then blew the transmission.
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.
http://www.tomandemily.com