Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Vista SP1 Meeting Sour Reception In Places

Posted by Zonk on from the just-a-bit-more-testing dept.

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."

24 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. And the problem is...? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    1. Re:And the problem is...? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:And the problem is...? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:And the problem is...? by ashridah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 :(

    4. Re:And the problem is...? by ansa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --

      --
      "The crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe(*)" - FZ
  2. A bad thing? by Drakin020 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  3. quick breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Khaaaaaaaan-

    uh, I mean,

    Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates!!!

  4. 12 blog comments = news ? by urbanriot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  5. Vocal Minority, as Usual by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  6. How about ... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How about ... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:How about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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"

    3. Re:How about ... by UnxMully · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:How about ... by ozphx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?"

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    5. Re:How about ... by Matey-O · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
  7. good by frakir · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:good by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... 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"

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  8. Problem exists between keyboard and chair. by Sitnalta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Reasons SP1 doesn't appear in Windows Update by jrronimo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  10. Newflash! by Itchyeyes · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  11. I agree by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree.

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

            http://www.microsoftisawesome.com/

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  12. Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I hate printers.
  13. Re:Time to disable auto install of updates by jonaskoelker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hopefully those of you who do support friends and family weren't cruel enough to yourself to put Vista on their machines. Fixed.
  14. From a vista user's perspective by Kahless2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)