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

And the problem is...?

[bigstrat2003]

So, SP1 won't install if there's an incompatible driver present (as opposed to installing and then crashing all the time, or just removing the driver)? That sounds pretty fucking sensible to me, what exactly are we supposed to find bad about that?

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.

Re:And the problem is...?

[cerberusss]

There's such a thing as user interaction and graceful degradation. People might want to accept lesser functionality because SP1 would give them things they can't do without. They might view sound as something unnecessary and thus choose to accept a non functioning piece of hardware. Graceful degradation would mean that it's OK to install but the printer will only print in black and white.

Re:And the problem is...?

[ScrewMaster]

I hate to say it, but I tend to take Microsoft's side on this one. If you do that, the vast majority of people won't care and will just click OK no matter what. Just like when their firewall says, "this is a potentially unsafe Web site". They click OK anyway because they just don't care.

Re:And the problem is...?

[vux984]

Or, God forbid, we just ask the user's permission to load a potentially unsafe driver!

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...?

[ScrewMaster]

For me personally, I feel exactly the same way you do. Most people on Slashdot who represent the more knowledgeable segment of the Vista-using population probably do too. But it's a fine balance ... either you leave the machine missing some functionality but still working, or you run a greater risk of blue-screening the thing. It's a tough call, really. Either way, the user ends up fucked but the former at least leaves him running. Given that Windows is the OS of choice for clueless people, that's probably the better way. Maybe it should just ask up front if you're dimwitted or computer-literate. If the latter, then have it do what you're saying.

Re:And the problem is...?

[ansa]

Maybe it's because they PAID for Vista... I'm sure RHEL customers will bitch a lot too with RH support if something like this happens...

Re:And the problem is...?

[JustinOpinion]

I agree with you.

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.

Time to disable auto install of updates

[cjmnews]

For those of you that do this to your parents and relatives for easier support.

A bad thing?

[Drakin020]

To top it all off, the service pack will not install on computers that use peripheral device drivers that Microsoft has deemed incompatible."

And that's a bad thing? The way I see it, this prevents even more problems. Honestly though I have heard great things about the upgrade from many users. Also Engadget was running a story and most of the people that commented had good things to say.

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

12 blog comments = news ?

[urbanriot]

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).

Vocal Minority, as Usual

[ThinkFr33ly]

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."

How about ...

[khasim]

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.

Re:How about ...

[bigstrat2003]

Are you kidding? Disabling the device would have users furious, and rightly so. And it may not be possible to skip the parts which are incompatible... but only Microsoft can tell us that one.

Re:How about ...

[Captain Splendid]

That will give support hell for Microsoft

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 ...

[theurge14]

These rogue 3rd party devices all sport the "Designed for Windows" sticker on the box, do they not?

Re:How about ...

[Allador]

But why is it that a device that was supported under Vista isn't supported under Vista SP1? Because of any number of things:

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 ...

[ozphx]

Probably the usual deal.

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?"

-1, Flamebait

[xstonedogx]

The article is schizophrenic. Rather than presenting a balanced view of SP1, it leads with unsubstantiated complaints as if that is the story, then talks about some facts (which are mostly positive) with some more complaints mixed in. Does it suck or not? This article says yes, but doesn't make a very good case for it.

"Dozens" of users of unknown levels of technical knowledge (out of millions of users) issued anecdotal complaints.

"Bikkja" said that "after installing SP1 things seem to go really slow, even though my computer shouldn't have any problems."

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.

Other troubles reported by Vista SP1 users ranged from a simple inability to download the software from Microsoft's Windows Update site...

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).

...to sudden spikes in memory usage. "Went from using 650 MB RAM idle to 1 Gig... I'll be switching back," said "Kurrier."

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.

The feature was plagued by false alarms that flagged thousands of legitimate Vista users as software pirates.

A legitimate (if unsubstantiated by the article) complaint, but well known before SP1 and really even before Vista.

I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[khasim]

No, I'm saying Microsoft MAY NOT be able to. Huge difference there.

And I said that Ubuntu could do it.

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? :D

Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[MrNaz]

I'm a Slashdotter, and I like Linux as much as any other. It earns me my bread. But seriously, dude, if you think that Linux distro's "Just Work", and all updates never cause dependency or conflict issues, then you're dreaming. Not even Ubuntu's upgrades always go smoothly, especially when you have exotic server hardware thrown into the mix, or obscure or complex packages running.

Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[Jason Earl]

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:Ubuntu can do it.

[westlake]

That could be because Microsoft expect money for their product. Anything else I buy has to work as advertised.

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

[Kahless2k]

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)