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...?

[spazdor]

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

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...?

[spazdor]

That's okay with me. Just warn me about the risks and get the hell out of my way. The point, to me, of those little warning boxes is not to dissuade people from accessing the sites/loading the drivers that they want. The point is just to let the user know that they're now leaving the Supported Zone and entering the shady world of Your Own Discretion.

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...?

[spazdor]

That's fair. I guess I'd be satisfied if the installer refused to load initially, but suggested that you go disable the driver by hand and then try re-enabling it after the upgrade.

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:And the problem is...?

[ashridah]

And word on the grapevine is that one of those drivers (the fujitsu one, iirc) happily treads on internal data structures in the kernel with hardcoded offsets.

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 :(

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.

Re:Time to disable auto install of updates

[sleigher]

Hopefully those of you who do support friends and family weren't cruel enough to put Vista on their machines.

Re:Time to disable auto install of updates

[jonaskoelker]

Hopefully those of you who do support friends and family weren't cruel enough to yourself to put Vista on their machines. Fixed.

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

Re:A bad thing?

[toleraen]

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

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.

quick breath

[Anonymous Coward]

Khaaaaaaaan-

uh, I mean,

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates!!!

I've had no problems

[jwsmith00]

I'm very happy with SP1. I've been very critical of Vista. But now I can say that I wouldn't go back to XP.

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).

Re:12 blog comments = news ?

[avandesande]

I wouldn't be surprized if their systems had been heavily customized (super users). Not making execuses but probably not a very good example of an average user. Regular j6p's don't usually install service packs and then blog about how well they worked.

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."

Re:Vocal Minority, as Usual

[cliffski]

well said. I kicked off my sp1 install and went to lunch. Came back to a machine needing 1 reboot, and then back into my work. Later found I needed to reinstall my monitor driver which was apparently not certified. Took 5 mins.
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.

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 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

should be able to uninstall the drivers themselves

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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[UnxMully]

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.

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 ...

[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:How about ...

[TW Atwater]

"Particularly for 64bit, which was almost twice the size of the 32bit update."

Well, let's see. 64/32 = 2. Yup, twice the size sounds about right.

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?"

Re:How about ...

[Matey-O]

Posh. You make it sound so hard! You just go to the System log, look for errorcode 0x80000000fc, find the filename in question (EBVIA235C.dll), search the registry for the 3rd occurance of that file name, write down the GUID {23301203-12-3-1-2451-2-231-123122312-23), search for _that_, open the file in a editor, search for strings to find the vendor name and search for it on Google.

Easy peasy!

Re:How about ...

[TheLinuxSRC]

While I realize your comment was meant to be funny (and it is) it is also informative/insightful. I have had some horrible problems with Windows drivers in the past and troubleshooting these problems made me want to stick bamboo shoots under my fingernails.

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 /var/log/messages to see if there are any errors. Also, if there is an error, usually there is a nice descriptive error message that many times even suggests what your problem might be.

good

[frakir]

One day I hope to enter a store, pick up a brand new hot game and find a sticker on it:
"WINE COMPATIBLE"

Re:good

[snowraver1]

... and all the muggles will think that means that just like cheese, this game goes well with wine.

"Ooohh, How thoughtful, this game goes with Merlot. Honey! We need to stop at the liquer store"

Re:good

[Chris Burke]

Well I have yet to find a game that isn't "wine compatible" in that sense, so there should be no problems!

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.

Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

[Sitnalta]

I installed SP1 on my desktop, laptop and several machines at work. There wasn't a single problem. My desktop had an "incompatible driver" and so I had to download SP1 from the MS website, but it installed fine and the driver is also working fine.

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.

-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.

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

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:That IS the service pack.

[Spy der Mann]

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.

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*

Newflash!

[Itchyeyes]

This just in: somewhere, someone on the Internet complains about something. More at 11.

Well SP1 saved me some crucial time this morning..

[funkdancer]

.. by suggesting that the 4gb memory stick would operate a lot faster if I put it into a high speed plug which was available on my Dell 2407wfp rather than in the top tray of the Antec 900 case. I hadn't figured that one out myself for some reason.

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 got a high speed usb stick, why plug it into a slow connector when you have a fast one available for use.

I for one thought that was sweet, especially as I just dodged the worst Melbourne morning traffic by not having to stay home another 15 minutes.

I agree

[tkrotchko]

I agree.

That's why when I want an even-handed tech assessment, I always go here first:

        http://www.microsoftisawesome.com/

Ubuntu can do it.

[khasim]

It always amazes me how people can be so defensive about such simple operations.

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:Ubuntu can do it.

[Kangburra]

That could be because Microsoft expect money for their product. Anything else I buy has to work as advertised. Car analogies spring to mind but hey you know what I mean.

Re:Ubuntu can do it.

[saleenS281]

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.

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.

Re:Ubuntu can do it.

[meimeiriver]

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.

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.

[solprovider]

"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.

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.

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".

[seifried]

Red Hat's do. I know Mandriva also does a pretty good job. Oddly enough the commercial Linux vendors do make sure stuff upgrades without breaking. Which is perhaps why they get paid.

Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it".

[MrNaz]

Try either distro with the latest Creative sound card and nVidia graphics card, and if you can get both working with full functionality without the need for a text editor, I shall retract my statement.

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".

[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: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.

Omminous screen saver

[edwardpickman]

Maybe the new Flying Brick screen saver should have been a sign.

Bias via experience and disappointment

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Dozens?

[treeves]

My intuition tells me that people who didn't have have any problems and/or were happy with the installation are much (and I mean ) less likely to go a blog about it and make a comment than people who had a problem. YMMV.

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)