Slashdot Mirror


Forbes Blasts Latests Windows 7 Patch as Malware

Forbes contributor Jason Evangelho has nothing good to say about a recent Windows 7 patch that's causing a range of trouble for some users. He writes: If you have Windows 7 set to automatically update every Tuesday, it may be to permanently disable that feature. Microsoft has just confirmed that a recent update — specifically KB 3004394 — is causing a range of serious problems and recommends removing it. The first issue that caught my attention, via AMD’s Robert Hallock, is that KB 3004394 blocks the installation or update of graphics drivers such as AMD’s new Catalyst Omega. Nvidia users are also reporting difficulty installing GeForce drivers, though I can’t confirm this personally as my machines are all Windows 8.1. Hallock recommended manually uninstalling the update, advice now echoed officially by Microsoft. More troubles are detailed in the article; on the upside, Microsoft has released a fix.

230 comments

  1. Short sighted by DavidRawling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING! Perhaps he will take personal responsibility the next time a patched vulnerability launches a new botnet? Nah, just write inflammatory rubbish, it's easier.

    1. Re:Short sighted by maestroX · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Windows updates are annoying for laptop users. You're about to shutdown and leave, just waiting for the XXX updates to complete...

    2. Re:Short sighted by jkrise · · Score: 1

      Last 3 patches since October have all been nuisance to sysadmins. Time to look elsewhere.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    3. Re:Short sighted by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

      THANK YOU! You just opened my eyes! I will immediately get rid of Windows and spend the next 4 weeks getting OpenBSD to somehow work on my laptop.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Short sighted by lucm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Last 3 patches since October have all been nuisance to sysadmins.

      Ah yes, Windows "sysadmins"... Cream of the crop. Unless there isn't a GUI for it.

      Is there a GUI for systemd?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re: Short sighted by nuckfuts · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a tip: If updates are pending but you want to shutdown quickly, don't choose Shutdown. Choose Log Off instead. Then, from the logon screen, you can choose either "Install updates and shutdown", or just "Shutdown".

    6. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    7. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!

      If security worked as advertised, we wouldn't be talking about the subject, would we? You don't discuss whether Emacs or Vi works, they work. Period. But security people are just like snake oil peddlers. We get diseased and we want a cure, but since they can't do anything and we're gonna die anyway, why not making some profit out of the situation?

      There's this patch "controlling" who can provide a better driver, there's Apple and lawsuits about iTunes being the only music provider, there are people upset about broken Nvidia drivers, there's Flash which works well in version 9 and version 10 says your hardware is not enough... frankly, sometimes I wonder if companies understand for whom they work.

      If I weren't already using F/OSS software, I'd start... if not for the Liberty in it, just cut middlemen out of the picture. If only they charged a lot, did a bad service but at least didn't fight among themselves...

      Hey, sucker! Yes, you. "You get what you pay"... and the more you pay, the more they get, sucker. It's idiots like these who feed the less competent and make them do a progressively worse job... because, why would you do a good software, if you can sell the suckers a new version (with more bugs, of course). What, you want connect the computer to a home network? Sure, just pay us a hundred...

      "What, do you want a beginner version? Sure, we have it for 20 bucks and it can be turned on. And off. And you can press NumLock and make a LED blink. What, ya think it's too little? Well, you get what you pay... hahaha!"

    8. Re:Short sighted by lucm · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    9. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, the great "you don't want to do that" solutions. As a anonymous coward I can finally say: I'm so sick of people like you. If you can't think of a real solution, then just say nothing.

      - You got shot, and need to stop the bleeding. Solution: You don't want to get shot.
      - Windows Vista doesn't update, how to solve it? Solution: You don't want to use Vista, and should upgrade.
      (add your own)

    10. Re:Short sighted by tranquilidad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Though I agree with your sentiment there was an additional patch in the group (KB2553154) that was a security update that conveniently broke ActiveX controls and macros in Excel 2013. It wasn't just one incredibly bad patch.

      I pity the poor vendors and their even poorer customers whose spreadsheets suddenly stopped working on December 10th.

    11. Re:Short sighted by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Considering that this is for a version of MSWind that MS is no longer selling, one may reasonably conjecture that MS is not exerting strong efforts on quality control. This is evidence supporting that conjecture.

      You can call it short sighted if you want, but to me it seems good grounds for disabling auto-update. At this point one should wait a few days to hear reports about the quality of each update.

      OTOH, I'm presuming that you'll be able to update it on Friday. If this is wrong, perhaps you should just avoid MSWind.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is.

    13. Re:Short sighted by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "What, do you want a beginner version? Sure, we have it for 20 bucks and it can be turned on. And off. And you can press NumLock and make a LED blink. What, ya think it's too little? Well, you get what you pay... hahaha!"

      Mac vs PC: Choose a Vista: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    14. Re:Short sighted by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have my settings adjusted so that Windows tells me about the updates, but I choose when to download and install them. It's best to wait a couple of days after they're released to find out if anybody is having a problem with one of them. Let some other poor sucker get his computer bricked.

    15. Re:Short sighted by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would be terrible advice. Fortunatly, nobody has suggested that. TFA suggested changing the setting to list updates for manual selection, and that's not at all bad advice. Wait a few days to see if people are screaming about horrible problems with the update, then select them manually.

      That would work even better if MS actually described what the update fixes (so you could decide if it's even relevant) rather than slipping things in.

    16. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty good tip. Thank you, nuckfuts.

    17. Re:Short sighted by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Actually they are still selling it. You can buy it on brand new business machines today.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    18. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He said work, not installed.

    19. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (follow up from pevious)

      Also I love that your solution to getting OpenBSD to work on his laptop; is to install OpenBSD and then a virtual machine host, and install windows on top of that.

      So why did you get rid of windows again?

    20. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Your laptop is not all laptops. Your laptop working with OpenBSD is not all laptops not working with BSD.

      How fucking hard *is* this shit to understand? What is *wrong* with you that you've dumped so much of your ego into a pissing context between OSs?

    21. Re:Short sighted by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's what it is. One bad patch.

      What does Microsoft average, having to pull a patch every week? Or only every second week?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:Short sighted by davester666 · · Score: 1

      gnome-terminal

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    23. Re:Short sighted by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      More like 4 minutes. OpenBSD user here and it just works(tm).

      Unless you have a laptop with a USB 3 controller. Then it boots up fine, just don't expect the keyboard, mouse, or touchpad to work.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Short sighted by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Ignore it. It'll shut off itself when it's done. No need to wait for it.

    25. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sysadmins hate him since he discovered this one weird trick.

    26. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American here. I have tried to explain this fact to people; they won't listen.

    27. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or press ALT-F4 to see the old shutdown menu. You can choose Shut Down from there.

    28. Re:Short sighted by Barny · · Score: 1

      That is the issue. Windows on a laptop should specifically ask you if you want to install updates, because when you need to grab your laptop and run, you don't want to wait for twenty minutes of updates first.

      I would suggest using Hibernate instead since it powers down the machine, when you see the "I am going to delay you" indicator on the shutdown icon.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    29. Re:Short sighted by GNious · · Score: 1

      Just for general understanding, are you saying that you
      1) have a strange laptop?
      or
      2) have a timemachine, and uninstalling Windows will cause it to send you back in time?

    30. Re:Short sighted by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Careful ... you keep this up, and systemd will start to come with its own nVidia driver for the 3D-enabled admin-UI

    31. Re:Short sighted by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention I used the supposedly "bad patch" on dozens of systems, Intel and AMD, with both APUs and GPUs...never saw this problem, not once. This leads me to think there was some sort of third party interference, perhaps an AV that is being over aggressive and causing the patch to only be half installed.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still using windows 98 and 95 disagree with you.

    33. Re:Short sighted by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!

      How is it that you interpret disabling auto-update as meaning "NEVER PATCH AGAIN"? I took it to mean don't patch until you're confident it's safe to do so. Don't you think that's a more reasonable view?

    34. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GUI?
      That's shortsighted.
      Linux is so versatile, you could write a MUD and run the server from inside the game. Imagine, want to kill a zombie process? Get a quest from the quest master, then hunt down and kill the wasteful zombie.

    35. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, USB 3 is fully supported in OpenBSD-current, which is quite stable as well.

      Lacking USB 3 support causes devices to fall back to USB 2, unless your machine has only USB 3 (like some Apple devices).

    36. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be impressive if a Windows update could brick the whole computer.

    37. Re:Short sighted by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Lacking USB 3 support causes devices to fall back to USB 2, unless your machine has only USB 3 (like some Apple devices).

      Yes, that is exactly the reason I wasn't able to install OpenBSD on my mac.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re: Short sighted by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you, nuckfuts.

      Now there's something you don't read every day.

    39. Re:Short sighted by meerling · · Score: 2

      LoL, "What is *wrong* with you that you've dumped so much of your ego into a pissing context between OSs?".
      Usually it's a pissing Contest, but strangely enough, your "pissing context" seems to fit it better. :P

    40. Re:Short sighted by meerling · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the history books I've seen, many written by non-americans, it was pretty clearly stated that if the USA hadn't finally gotten into the war in Europe, Germany would have pretty much steamrolled what was left of western Europe, then turned full forces including it's Luftwaffe on Russia (actually USSR) and overwhelmed them outside of winter. Instead they got beaten back and their forces continually depleted by the Allied forces on the Western Front, leaving the Eastern front vulnerable and less capable, loosing even their initial advances when the lack of supplies and brutal winter devastated their forces.
      Things "might" have gone smoother with the American forces in Europe, but they were also engaged in the Pacific conflict at the same time, and needed the shifting of forces from the ending of the European conflict to bring a conclusion to the Pacific conflict. Of course there are the nukes, but those only ended it quicker and with far less bloodshed than would have happened otherwise, even with the most optimistic forecasts. It just goes to show that fighting a war on multiple fronts is never a good idea.

    41. Re:Short sighted by Teun · · Score: 1

      In the mean time it must be a kernel with some interesting weak-points...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    42. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hibernate is a BAD IDEA when applying updates in the background, you can trust me on that.

    43. Re:Short sighted by pepty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you haven't updated your OS in three years?

    44. Re: Short sighted by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong.

      Hibernate.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    45. Re:Short sighted by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Forbes is a publications for uneducated gamblers and people who intentionally deprive their brains of oxygen by employing fashionable silk nooses.

    46. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      english please.

    47. Re:Short sighted by snickers · · Score: 0

      Not being harsh but you should actually read one of those history books instead of seeing them. Once Germany failed to conquer the USSR in 1941 it was game over for them. The only thing that the allies did by invading Europe in 1944 was ensure that western Europe wasn't occupied by the Russians. I'm not sure what this steamrolling of Western Europe means since they had already done that in 1940. America was certainly decisive in ensuring that D Day happened and western Europe was liberated but Germany was always going to be defeated by the Russians once they failed to land the knockout blow. I've always wondering that if they had captured Moscow wether it would have one the war for them.

    48. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thrash and fragment that disk - and if you run out of power, reinstall Windows. Good thinking.

    49. Re:Short sighted by lucm · · Score: 1

      I heard the new version comes with Red5 bundled to let people use the new Flash control panel.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    50. Re:Short sighted by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Yes, because users who tend to forget how to open an email attachment will of course remember to apply updates to Windows. Smart.

    51. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got burned by it. Updated my Catalyst drivers for the first time in a while, since I saw the article on ./ about the performance improvements. I was asked to reboot after installation, which I thought odd because that wasn't required pretty much since Vista. Reboot and the Catalyst control centre complained about no AMD driver being installed. Device manager showed the exclamation mark next to the video card and some nonsense about the digital signature being NFG.

      Had to roll it back to get it fixed. Now after the recall of the bad patch, driver install worked.

    52. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name a Patch Tuesday since they Fired all the Update Testers that "Have Not" recommended removing.

      Microsoft hasn't a clue right now, and their programmers are infantile and inexperienced.

    53. Re:Short sighted by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some people wait for the little red light to change their oil. That sort of person should pay someone to look after their car and computer.

      Of course, that sort of person probably won't read TFA or /. and probably has no idea how to change the update settings.

    54. Re:Short sighted by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      When talking about Windows, mostly hibernate is the correct title because sometimes hibernate is not so much hibernate but crash on attempt to end hibernation and reboot. I would be fairly cautious about attempting to hibernate part way through an update. Better to go to Windows updates and change the configuration to download updates but ask before patching.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    55. Re: Short sighted by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Worthless with most AMD GPUs as the drivers never reload so you just have to kill the system and choose to restart clean. Care to try again?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    56. Re: Short sighted by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      My Windows 7 laptop doesn't fragment due to hibernation. My Windows 8.1 laptop ditto.

      But I'm not the one trying to use AMD drivers.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    57. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take laptop, shut down and put in bag while it is updating. Been doing this for years and never had a problem. Modern CPUs run slower when they get hot and updates only take a few minutes at most.

    58. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just want to add that Forbes just launched a geat deal: you can get 24 issues for only $1.25 each. More info at: http://forbesmagdeals.blogspot.com

    59. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never read a history book not filed under fiction if that was what you read.

    60. Re:Short sighted by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      If you had any balls you would install Hurd instead...

      N00b...

    61. Re:Short sighted by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!

      If Microsoft only put out "one" bad patch, you might have an argument.

      But hey, the modern day Microsoft apologist tactic of going apeshit instead of rational discussion, and blaming the victims is noted.

      And the "Capslock loaded and ready to rumble" is just adorable.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    62. Re: Short sighted by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Here's a tip: If updates are pending but you want to shutdown quickly, don't choose Shutdown. Choose Log Off instead. Then, from the logon screen, you can choose either "Install updates and shutdown", or just "Shutdown".

      Next Microsoft hot tip:

      There's a thingy on your computer that you look at. It's called a screen or monitor depending on the type of computer.

      If you want to do stuff, you can look at this screen thing and do stuff.

      Next week's Microsoft secrets tip: What's that board-like thing on my computer with all the letters on it?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    63. Re:Short sighted by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      THANK YOU! You just opened my eyes! I will immediately get rid of Windows and spend the next 4 weeks getting OpenBSD to somehow work on my laptop.

      You really know nothing about modern Linux do you? And if you still want to talk about ancient installs, let's talk about how well Windows 1.0 works.

      Because it's the same thing. Haven't had on computer not "just work" after installing Linux, in the last few years and that includes some exotic installs like Chromebooks. or touchscreen laptops. And at this point, driver selection is better.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    64. Re:Short sighted by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, Windows "sysadmins"... Cream of the crop. Unless there isn't a GUI for it.

      Is there a GUI for systemd?

      That is just freaking precious!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    65. Re:Short sighted by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You shut down your laptop? What year is this? 2002?

      It's another one of those years when MS Windows tells me it's going to automatically shut down my laptop in a minute, unless I'm looking at it at the time the dialog box pops up letting me delay the shutdown for 10 minutes or 4 hours.

    66. Re:Short sighted by Willuz · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I know that the meaning of words can change over time but this is an egregious misuse of the term "bricked". There are plenty of terms to refer to a degradation in function but "bricked" specifically refers to an unrecoverable total failure such as a corrupted BIOS or blown electronics which cannot feasibly be fixed.

    67. Re:Short sighted by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This is the most unprofessional thing I ever saw. I had to force a shutdown in several cases on this, because I had to leave for a meeting or at the end of a meeting I had to vacate the room. Seriously, the person responsible for this does not have two brain cells to rub together.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    68. Re:Short sighted by operagost · · Score: 1

      But it's not just one. They put one that caused BSODs just a few months ago.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    69. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check into it, I bet it is. But the REAL issue is when your hibernate data (written to disk) fails due to corruption, loss of power, bad byte, stalled out update proc, etc.

      That's a reinstall issue.

    70. Re:Short sighted by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Having gone from the Linux to windows world. I'd like to refute your joke, sadly when we migrated all our servers to 2012r2 and went with server core almost half the staff had no idea how to use them. I was told to put the GUI back until I could train them in how to use powershell. :-(

    71. Re: Short sighted by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      If I encounter a hibernation data issue, I reboot. In fact, my Windows alerts me and offers to clear and reboot, try again, or sometimes go to safe mode.

      Reinstalling? Nope.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    72. Re: Short sighted by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      There is also a registry setting you can make which means the option in the start menu is set at whatever it was last time. Thus, if it was "shutdown" last time, it will be "shutdown" this time, even if there are updates pending.

      Can't find that one but there are other options too. Here's one:

      http://www.howtogeek.com/howto...

    73. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the guy who apparently isn't in a corporate environment where "one bad patch" can cause serious productivity issues.

    74. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exaggeration? Anybody with enough google-fu to find Urban Dictionary would realize reboot246 was using hyperbole.

    75. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a good idea if you have a spinning platter and want to move the laptop.

    76. Re: Short sighted by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      I generally live software updates. They usually result in a faster, more stable, now secure system. But a bad patch can be a huge problem best avoided. I do note with interest Microsoft appear to have a history of bad patches on the previous versions of Windows and the answer is often to upgrade to the latest version. This is one of the many reasons why I now tend to avoid Windows completely but for one "legacy" machine. I'm waiting for 64-bit Android. Shouldn't be long now.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    77. Re:Short sighted by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      If only it were just the one bad patch. Microsoft has had a number of flawed patches recently.

    78. Re:Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, wisdom learned the hard way. I just hope that Microsoft learned from this goof.

    79. Re: Short sighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thimk it was called an undocumented feature ?

    80. Re:Short sighted by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Germany did pretty much steamroll Western Europe up to the coast, except for Spain and Portugal. Taking Britain was going to be a lot harder, and everybody knew that. The German plans to invade southern England in 1940 are positively ludicrous, and their attempts to suppress British air power caused them losses they never really had a chance to recoup.

      Germany then attacked the Soviet Union, and failed in 1941, before the US had any significant impact on the war. The US didn't have an army on the European mainland before September 1943, and the US air forces didn't have a serious impact before mid-1943. Eventually, the US had a major role, but it came much later than any time Germany could possibly have won, and primarily accelerated the end of the war and kept the Soviets out of most of Western Europe.

      The US was engaged in the Pacific, and the majority of the resources available in 1942 went there, but the US was really not ready for a war by the end of 1942. The US was frantically building up a large army, but it didn't start to show up until sometime in 1943 and wasn't anywhere near full strength before 1944.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    81. Re:Short sighted by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that while some vendors were still selling it, MS had ceased selling it. I had presumed that the vendors were clearing back stock, but this *was* a presumption. If the computer manufacturers are still making new systems then this would substantiate your point, but I don't know how to check that, and be sure they aren't just clearing inventory.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    82. Re:Short sighted by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Totally ignoring the effects of the UK and US bombing of the big industrial centres in Germany. Without some of that bombing there is a very good chance of the Nazi's fighting the soviets with nuclear bombs and advanced missiles - guess who would have won then.

      Also ignoring that Stalin was every bit as bad on human rights and every bit as murderous as the Nazis were. In the pre-Stalinised version of the history the Soviets killed between about 10 and 30 million in eastern Europe including up to 10 million in death camps. The only difference is the fifty years the Soviets had to cover it all up and brainwash it out of the history afterwards... When the Allies chose between Stalin and Hitler there wasn't that much in it. In the end it probably came down to the fact that Hitler was an even bigger liar than Stalin was...

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    83. Re:Short sighted by Cramer · · Score: 1

      No. One should never set it to auto-fucking-matic, because M$ is well known for doing this shit. Install updates in a controlled environment to see what might be b0rked -- where possible, that can be hard for many home users. OR wait until everyone else has done the testing for you.

    84. Re:Short sighted by Cramer · · Score: 1

      (and here I am getting drawn into a nazi arguement)

      Without the pressure from the west from the "yanks", the Russians would've had a significantly more difficult road to Berlin. Despite Hitler's "failure" in 1941, the Russians were still not in Berlin *years* later, barely making headway, and in fact loosing some valuable territories, up to D-Day. Even after the Normandy invasion, it still took almost a year to get to Berlin. In the end, without US involvement and the allied western invasions (including north africa), things would've been very different for Russia -- facing Germany on one side and Japan on the other, almost entirely on their own. Kursk was the beginning of the end, but not because Hitler *lost*, but because he withdrew his forces -- he gave up, focusing on the increasing threats in the west. (no invasion of Sicily, Kursk might've ended in his favor -- 'tho I doubt it with Stalin being the embodiment of Zapp Brannigan)

    85. Re: Short sighted by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      The interesting thing about my post being named "flamebait, it comes after a +5 informative on a shutdown function that everyone's gramma should know.

      Has Facebook or the Yahoolicgans taken over Slashdot that such a simple thing, an elementary procedure that no one who considers themselves as knowing anything at all about computers is now considered something informative, something that apparently at least 5 pro Windows shills with mod points were able to process and place into their little book of amazing windows secrets? That's more sad than snarky.

      It was a joke. This comment isn't Its merely taking pity on the less abled among us. So you just go ahead and mark this post as troll too, Y'all will feel better for it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    86. Re: Short sighted by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      The solution might be to actually run your updates before you generally shut down.

    87. Re:Short sighted by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I haven't shut down a laptop in 3 years

      Guess you were rather behind on Windows Update patches, huh...

      (As I understand it, some patches require a full reboot to install.)

    88. Re:Short sighted by Wootery · · Score: 1

      (I see that I was right: Windows Update is now telling me I'm required to reboot to install updates.)

    89. Re:Short sighted by vandamme · · Score: 1

      And always right when the immediate departure of your flight is announced.

    90. Re:Short sighted by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I shut down all my machines daily, or when not in use for an hour or more, to save power mostly. Hey, it only takes a minute to boot up.

      Disclaimer: I run Linux.

    91. Re:Short sighted by vandamme · · Score: 1

      It takes me ten minutes to install Linux Mint. The hardest part is coming up with a user name and password.

    92. Re:Short sighted by ExcelClout · · Score: 1

      I'm an Excel developer, and I've been hit hard in the past few days. However I was lucky enough to discover a workaround that would resolve the issue using a marco. That allowed me to continue to distribute my work to my clients. I've posted the code on my site, and I hope it could help as many Excel developers and their customers as possible

      http://www.excelclout.com/micr...

    93. Re:Short sighted by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Dell is actively selling every new business machine with Windows 7 Pro as an option (in fact, by default). They have been all year. I sell quite a few of these.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  2. When I first read this by present_arms · · Score: 1, Troll

    I thought it class Windows as malware, and my immediate thought was "about fucking time" but it's just another messed up patch. it happens.

    --
    http://chimpbox.us
    1. Re:When I first read this by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Yea Least MS fix's things in a timely manner unlike a certain fruit company that takes 2 months to get around to it.

    2. Re:When I first read this by present_arms · · Score: 1

      You have no argument from me :) and I think others need to learn to read of what I said, but never mind, I don't own any fruity products but I know through reading that what you say is true to an extent, as to my comment above it's humourous not a troll hahaha, I swear every time I come to this site, the IQ of the average reader drops. And at least I put my name to it :P Alistair.

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    3. Re:When I first read this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I have a question about that. I noticed that MS did an update, and had already updated my AMD drivers to Omega a few days ago. I haven't noticed any problems.

      Is this the kind of problem patch that MS will fix in a subsequent patch or do I have to go uninstall the latest patch even though I haven't experienced any problems yet?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:When I first read this by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      This particular patch has actually already been fixed and superseded. It should just fix itself automagically.

    5. Re:When I first read this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This particular patch has actually already been fixed and superseded.

      So, what's the big deal then?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:When I first read this by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Well thats my point - no big deal ;).

  3. Who needs root certificate updates anyway? by simplypeachy · · Score: 1, Troll

    Let's just stop installing these updates, they're clearly created by Microsoft with the express intent of committing acts of malice, not to improve their software.

  4. It uninstalled itself... by radish · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to my update history they automatically uninstalled it the next day (via a new update). So the auto updates worked - no drama.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    1. Re:It uninstalled itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AH that makes more sense what happened to me then.

      The command to run to find out if you have it installed is

      wmic qfe list

      My history says installed but it is not there.

    2. Re:It uninstalled itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, just fired up wmic for the first time in PowerShell, seems like quite cool little tool. :)

    3. Re:It uninstalled itself... by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Yep, my history shows the Auto update installed the suggested fix 12/13/2014, before this article was posted here. I had noticed problems with Nvidia, so I'm glad they fixed it. Razr mouse may also have been affected. So the jury still says, let Windows auto-update.

      --
      Gently reply
    4. Re:It uninstalled itself... by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 2

      In the provided link, MS claims that one of problems with the said update is that it prevents future updates. It seems that it was not the case, luckily.

      BTW, my problem with this update was that VirtualBox did not want to start the virtual machine.

      --
      No sig today.
    5. Re:It uninstalled itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems it didn't take them too long to figure out there was a problem. I have mine set to just alert me when new updates are available, but the actual updating is done manually and I typically give it a few days before I pull the trigger. This time around, I installed them on day 2. Looked through the list expecting to see it there but it wasn't listed anywhere -- nor have I installed any other updates in the meantime.

      So it seems by day 2 of the rollout they had a removal in place for those who had installed it and removed it off the list entirely for people (like me) who hadn't gotten around to this month's Patch Tuesday batch.

      All things considered, not bad.

      -- As an aside: for me it's trivial to manually manage most (if not all) of my security updates personally. But at the same time, from personal experience, I know just how bad of an idea it is to leave "casual" users with the automatic update system turned off. It won't matter if it screams at them from time to time, begging to be updated, most people simply won't do it. Same with Adobe updates, even Firefox updates.. They either ignore it as some nuisance they don't need to be bothered with, or worse, think it's some malware asking to be installed -- that one was my dad (and all things considered, I'd rather he suspect *everything* might be malware than the alternative). Just saying, if people followed Forbes' advice, in short order you'd have many more Win boxes going around completely unpatched.

  5. Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    That way you can just trash it & reload a clone if something goes wrong.

    1. Re:Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way by oic0 · · Score: 1

      If your system is a virtual machine, I doubt you care much about nvidia and amd video drivers.

    2. Re:Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I do, because my client is running in a VM sandbox, just like everybody else's/

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

      My problem with this update was that VirtualBox did not want to start virtual machines. So running Windows inside VM solves all problems with this patch: just as you don't have to worry about AMD and Nvidia drivers, you don't have to worry about VirtualBox because it makes very little sense to run VM inside a VM.

      --
      No sig today.
    4. Re:Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This update installed on my virtual machine's host, and one of the side effects was that no VirtualBox VM would start until I uninstalled it.

  6. the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    10s of millions of mostly satisfied customers, hundreds of patchs
    ONE patch doesn't work for some customers, and it is the headline
    I wonder if any ONE of the critics has as good a track record as MS

    1. Re:the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, although at least they fixed that very promptly too.

    2. Re:the real story by Deathlizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the problem that I have with this isn't this particular patch, but the pattern.

      Microsoft over the last 6 months have not had a patch cycle that didn't have major widespread issues with a patch that was eventually recalled. The last time they had problems this bad was sometime around 2002-2003, and back then they claimed that they changed their testing criteria to prevent major patch issues from happening, And it worked for a good while. At least I only had to worry about 1-2 bad patches a year at most.

      This patch botch, however, takes the cake. There is absolutely no way this patch should have been able to pass a competent Q/A test. Every single windows 7 machine that got this patch through our test systems (which is about 100 PC's spread across multiple vendors and OS images) popped up a "you are a conterfeit victim" message within 24 hours of receiving the patch. There is no way they couldn't have run into this unless they are doing short term checks for patch related issues.

      "The Patch Installed without crashing" is Not Good enough Q/A when you are rolling out a patch to millions of potential customers. Someone in MS Q/A Needs to get fired over these issues before it causes more damage (IE: People taking Forbes stupid advice, disabling critical updates and getting infected by some cryptovirus that wipes out all of their company files that could have been prevented by a patch install.)

    3. Re:the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Patch Installed without crashing" is Not Good enough Q/A when you are rolling out a patch to millions of potential customers. Someone in MS Q/A Needs to get fired over these issues before it causes more damage (IE: People taking Forbes stupid advice, disabling critical updates and getting infected by some cryptovirus that wipes out all of their company files that could have been prevented by a patch install.)

      But it was Agile(tm). Having an actual QA period where you can't just slam in new code and autodeploy it sounds awfully waterfallish. Three cheers for continuous deployment! It passed the internal test suite, so ship it! That's the Agile way!

    4. Re:the real story by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Go figure, they neuter their QA and since then we've had problem after problem.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  7. Malware? by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think calling something "Malware" implies malice, something that's not indicated here as I see it. This is probably a case of incompetence, releasing poorly thought out, poorly written, and/or poorly tested code. Maybe we need a term for that - "bugware". (Or, for the cynics in the audience, we already have a term - "software".)

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    1. Re:Malware? by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forbes are trying to make things sound worse then it is to get views without any real journalism.

    2. Re:Malware? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Didn't Microsoft lay off thousands of QA testers a few months back?

    3. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Lets just call windows itself as malware/spyware/crapware. It all fits. Smart people get fed up with this $hit and move on to Linux.

    4. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $10 the problem was in the graphics drivers, and Microsoft just had to work around their bugs

    5. Re:Malware? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      When an antivirus tool is disabled, then the presumptioon of sloppy carelessness is a bit strained. An assertion of "probable malice" isn't unreasonable. (One might, however, wonder on whose part. Was the update site hacked?)

      OTOH, is sloppy carelessness is the suspected reason, then one might well doubt the policy of installing patches that are less tested than those of Debian testing. Perhaps it's better to wait a few days and monitor the response.

      OTTH, updating a couple of days later after monitoring the results imposes a large burden on the end-user...and the updates would be likely to be skipped.

      Perhaps it's best to just accept that MS is sloppy and careless, and occasionally updates your (what they consider obsolete) system with something indistinguishable from malware.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Malware? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      testing is generally automated, if they were using people to test the literally millions of permutations of patches, drivers, hardware, software etc you can bet there would be thousands of more issues with updates.

    7. Re:Malware? by mauriceh · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps "crapware" .. Oh wait, that describes Windows in general!

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    8. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your input. However, adults are actually working, so if you could go play with your Linux toys without talking that would be great.

    9. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows 8 isn't selling. people like windows 7.

      solution. break windows 7 'accidentally'.

      sounds like malware. depending on your point of view.

    10. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past, Windows crashed all the time, kept grinding the hard drive constantly, got malware by just looking at it, and had a crappy command line. Linux offered a great alternative. What benefits does Linux offer these days? My experience has been that I just get more problems if I replace Windows with a Linux distro. Honest question.

    11. Re:Malware? by present_arms · · Score: 1

      windows/Linux user here, there are problems with both, however linux is just better, I use PClinuxOS as my main desktop, idiot easy to install, updates are frequent as it's a rolling distro, so I never have to reinstall. I have a separate /home partition, that's sync'd by rsync to my little machine I use for back ups, everything was found hardware wise, and yes some things go wrong, usually fixed within a day of being reported, this isn't unique to just the distro I use, but the majority of others too, regardless of init system they use. I admin both Linux and Windows machines and 9 times out of 10 if the phone rings it's a Windows issue, and that doesn't mean it's 9 Windows machines to every 1 Linux box, it's actually near half and half. Alie.

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    12. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failware. I mean you have one job, and that's to update and regression test that update against the relative few platform iterations that exist... Failware.

    13. Re:Malware? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Whoa. They had quality testers?

    14. Re:Malware? by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need a term for that - "bugware".

      I prefer "shitware". :-)

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    15. Re:Malware? by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Whoa. They had quality testers?

      Yep. Incredible, uh? =P

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    16. Re:Malware? by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      While that is true, the implication that the automation creates and maintains itself is very false.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    17. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa. They had quality testers?

      They used to. Now they've stooped down to Linux's level.

    18. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.. They only Hire "Perfect Programmers" who write "Self Documenting Code" and work for "Pennies" and Sacrifie on the Altar of their "Investor Gods" to give back value to "Stock Holders".

    19. Re:Malware? by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by Microsoft's incompetence."

  8. the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a similar problem two patch tuesdays agao.

  9. pointless drama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest go nowhere all drama anti windows article written this year. Brick a PC indeed... this person has no business working in the PC industry.

  10. Re:Lol, nobody cares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The door's right over there. If you go tbrough it quickly enough, it might not smack you in the ass as you exit the building.

  11. Different update causing me problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing is the patch that killed me was KB 2553154. Broke my Excel spreadsheets. Surprised haven't read more about this breakage on-line.

  12. Terminal Windows Complexity? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    I'm just wondering if Windows has become so complex that even MS's programmers can't keep all the gears and chains and indexers humming along w/99.9% uptime.

    When are we as users going to insist on bullet proof OS's? It goes for all mainstream systems.

    Seems like it time for a ground up rebuild of the OS. If not, why continue using a system with so many problems. Patch after patch after malware patch and it doesn't change.

    1. Re:Terminal Windows Complexity? by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Any modern OS is too complex for a single person to understand.

      Windows is especially bad, given that the de facto goal is to maintain as much compatibility as humanly possible - including the antiquated Win32 API.

      Starting with Windows 8.1, the tendency is more towards the Unix method of providing several versions of the same thing (much like what was done with the Visual Studio runtimes), presenting applications only the one they claim to target (or the default, which is Windows 7, IIRC). This should allow the API to be "broken" in newer releases, which should allow for better manageability.

    2. Re:Terminal Windows Complexity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any modern OS is too complex for a single person to understand.

      That's what regression testing is for, you write your unit tests once and forget about them until they fail. You don't need one person to know how all of the nuts and bolts of the entire system fit together, you just need employees to create the tests. The tests will tell you when a change in feature X breaks something in feature Y down the road. Unfortunately I hear a lot of QA was cut in the last round of Microsoft layoffs - and it's showing.

  13. Consumer Rights? by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    What can you do against vendors who do that? At the very best it's a hassle to fix the problem caused resulting in wasted man-hours (bearing in mind that most of us are not tech-savvy). At the very worst, this can result in permanent damage for example iOS 8 bricking your iPhone. What do you do then? What are your consumer rights when a botch (insufficiently tested) OS update results in a damaged device? Who is to blame here?

  14. A 1990s classic joke by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

    With the recent problems being encountered by Windows users all across the country, people are begin to ask themselves if windows is a virus. In response to the high demand for an answer to that question a study was done and concluded the following.

    1. Viruses replicate quickly.
    Windows does this.

    2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so.
    Windows does this.

    3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk.
    Windows does this.

    4. Viruses are usually carried, unkown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems.
    Windows does that too.

    5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware.
    Same with Windows, yet again.

    Maybe Windows really is a virus.

    Nope! There is a difference!

    Viruses are well supported by their authors, are frequently updated, and tend to become more sophisticated as they mature. So there! Windows is not a virus.

    1. Re:A 1990s classic joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good joke, but it's still interesting to observe how points 2, 3, and 5 are not a significant problem anymore with modern Windows. How have times changed.

    2. Re:A 1990s classic joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also number 4 is wrong.
      The user knows they have windows.

      Because they know if they have a mac, or a PC. They don't know how to use it, but "like it", because its pretty and everyone else comments on their beautiful mac, or they "don't like it" meaning it's windows.
      And if they somehow have the third option, some kind of nix, they know it because it isn't a mac, AND they know they don't know how to use it.

      Either way; they always know when they have windows.

      Finally, 1 is wrong too, hasn't anyone seen the takeup rates of new versions of windows? pretty fucking horrible.

    3. Re:A 1990s classic joke by reikae · · Score: 1

      I realize this was a joke, but how were viruses well supported by the authors in 1990s? The authors rarely provided contact info and their products only worked on computers running MS-DOS!

    4. Re:A 1990s classic joke by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      I guess it was in the sense of: their creators keep creating improved (more destructive or contagious) versions of them.

  15. Really bad advice by mseeger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Several readers have pointed out that disabling automatic Windows Updates is bad advice, and while thatâ(TM)s a fair argument I have to disagree.

    It is really a BAD advice. The average PC user is not an ops person. If an update bricks his PC, he will notice and can get help. If his PC is insecure, he will notice nothing and help (if ever) will be asked for much too late.

    His arguments amount to one thing: avoid changes. Any change is a risk. But so is crossing the street. In the long run, a change-averse strategy will lead to worse results than the occasional botched change (exceptions apply, but those are rare). And the only way for the average user to do changes is to automate them.

    1. Re:Really bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll second that. In a corporate environment, on the other hand, you want to disable automatic updates. That way you can test it, and roll it out in phases, so it doesn't end up bricking every single computer in the company.

    2. Re:Really bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Windows 95 and 98 users? I'm pretty sure the internet is a lot safer for them ...

    3. Re:Really bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is really a BAD advice. The average PC user is not an ops person. If an update bricks his PC, he will notice and can get help. If his PC is insecure, he will notice nothing and help (if ever) will be asked for much too late.

      Too late for what, exactly? The average PC user doesn't care about security because they don't believe it effects them. Updates or not, plenty of systems are compromised because of that mentality--much more so than auto-updating which like anti-virus software is more often a pseudo-panacea to the problem.

      His arguments amount to one thing: avoid changes. Any change is a risk. But so is crossing the street. In the long run, a change-averse strategy will lead to worse results than the occasional botched change (exceptions apply, but those are rare). And the only way for the average user to do changes is to automate them.

      No, his argument amounts to (in line with your analogy), stop and look ways before crossing the street. Don't just blindly cross just because the crosswalk flashes green. The average user, if they actually waited more, would see the "ops person" run into the problems and the fixes be released before they take the first step into the intersection.

      The point isn't to avoid change. It is to be more security conscious and do manual updates on a regular basis a bit delayed after their release. This is especially true because, perversely, "the occasional change" can mean "an update bricks his PC" which he can't afford--the average user is not a Forbes reader--and they have less to suffer from an insecure PC that is infected. That might seem ass-backwards, but then at the rate at which we do have these botched upgrades (once a year, perhaps?), it's cheaper to ask for help when your system is seriously fucked up from malware (perhaps every two years?).

      Now, one could reasonably argue that one uses such a system for financial stuff and personal information and the losses there are too great. But, then, the truth is if that were real then the opportunity cost of learning security which is very low for the average user would still incur them to update software manually (yet regularly) and again they'd be better off (with rarely, if ever, a fucked up system). But, clearly we're not there and it's not because autoupdate is providing such stellar security. No, people just don't suffer as much as you make it out to be and there isn't much of a "too late", really.

      PS - Indirectly, spam and DDoS from compromised systems don't meaningfully effect the average user. So, even that's basically a non-issue.

    4. Re:Really bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if Microsoft Continues to "Fail" so publically and agregiously.. we have to have a Public Conversation about "Locking them Out" of their own products Update cycle unless they can prove.. they aren't going to screw up your system. The Trust Factor has been Violated over and over again in the last few Months.. Malware writers hare actually having to "Repair" the Damage Microsoft is doing deliberately.. before infecting a system.

      This is getting really Bad.

      Microsoft is starting to Promote that its better to get your Support from Malware providers than themselves.. as they are "more" Competent than Microsoft

    5. Re:Really bad advice by Willuz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't end up bricking ANY computers. If a computer were "bricked" it would be unable to boot any OS and this problem isn't even close to that.

    6. Re:Really bad advice by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Any change is a risk. But so is crossing the street.

      I would have said, "Any change is risk. But so is not changing."

  16. Re:Almost true by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    You could at least *try* to make the joke intelligent, instead of repeating a tired one...

  17. you can have bulletproof, or the latest games by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You can have a bullet proof OS today if that's what you really want, if that's you top priority. That means you're willing to forego the cool new features in favor of stability. It means learning an environment different from Windows, because stability is not the #1 priority in Windows.

    Some of the BSDs are far more stable than Windows and more stable than the most common Linux distributions. QNX is still more stable. So you can get as much stability as you want. You won't be playing the latest games on a super-stable system, but pick your priorities. In rough order of least to most stable:

    Windows
    Experimental Linux (Fedora, etc)
    OSX
    Enterprise Linux
    stable BSDs
    Corporate Unixes
    QNX

  18. KB3024777 Fixes this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A newer update (KB3024777) removes this patch referenced in this article.

  19. Re:Almost true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, another pathetic loser making up for the bullying he received at High School by being a pathetic loser online.

    *Slow handclaps*

    I'd mod you down if I still had mod points but they coincidentally ran out halfway through modding down all the pathetic fucking losers imparting their 'wisdom' on this story.

    Seriously, all of you, just GROW THE FUCK UP. That or slit your fucking wrists - the latter's probably better all round.

  20. Re:Lol, nobody cares. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, he could go to SoylentNews where none of the mods will mod down an anti-MS rant no matter how facile, and a post stating "lol slashdot was shite fuck dice! XD" will be +5 Insightful sooner than you can say shit.

    He'd fit right in.

  21. Did really he say that? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!

    Did he actually say that?

    Or did he say turn off *automatic* patching?

    It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.

    1. Re:Did really he say that? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.

      I as well as millions of other sysadmins would very much like this feature in Windows.

      That way we can immediately patch some machines and test for problems and then have the others patch 1-2 weeks later. 99% of the time it will be fine, but that 1% will save a weeks worth of downtime.

      WSUS doesn't really cut it in this regard and requires too much manual work for a sysadmin that already doesn't have enough time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  22. Can do this without logging off by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Informative

    While your steps work, you can also just focus on the desktop (by clicking the background, for example), then press ALT+F4. You will then be presented with the shutdown menu which includes the same options you cited, but without the need to log off first.

    1. Re: Can do this without logging off by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Nice! I'll have to remember that.

    2. Re:Can do this without logging off by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Nope, just closed the browser and that was it. Win7 64bit.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:Can do this without logging off by PRMan · · Score: 1

      "focus on the Desktop" Maybe click that little rectangle to the right of the clock first.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Can do this without logging off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another option, type: shutdown /s / t 00 into the Windows 7 start menu and press the enter key. The system to shutdown immediately (though it won't force close running applications, add a /f for that).

    5. Re:Can do this without logging off by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm a dopey fkker, I forgot to click to desktop!

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    6. Re:Can do this without logging off by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      While your steps work, you can also just focus on the desktop (by clicking the background, for example), then press ALT+F4. You will then be presented with the shutdown menu which includes the same options you cited, but without the need to log off first.

      I prefer to click the task bar, then ALT+F4.

      It's also useful in remote desktop when you're trying to shutdown or reboot the remote machine. Also included is Microsoft's "Windows Virtual PC" which uses remote desktop as the integration technology, and makes it difficult to shutdown or reboot the VM.

    7. Re:Can do this without logging off by steelfood · · Score: 2

      There's nothing quite as fast as the old school method of yanking the cord.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:Can do this without logging off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This worked great back in the days when computers did what you told them. If you told the computer to save a document it did, and when the hard drive led stopped flickering it was safe to turn off.

      These days the saving will probably be delayed because the computer is busy fetching stuff from the disk that someone has anticipated that you might need later. It doesn't matter if everything you do right now is slowed down as long as you get a faster experience later!

      Bring me back to the cord-yanking days please.

    9. Re:Can do this without logging off by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Yes, all that fetching and swapping is one of the reasons I shut down my laptop every night, otherwise my, admittedly under-resourced, work laptop slows to a crawl, especially when I'm doing a lot of multi-tasking.

    10. Re:Can do this without logging off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a laptop?

    11. Re:Can do this without logging off by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Yanking the cord on a laptop is ineffective unless you also remove the battery. On some recent laptops and tablets you can't even do that unless you take the machine apart.

    12. Re:Can do this without logging off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. By the time hard drives were affordable, many people used disk caching software.

      Good old HyperDisk. Made HDD access very fast, but you had to make sure to flush the cache before rebooting.

  23. So easy to blame Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, let's just stop updating Windows because some times a update conflicts with drivers, software or connectivity. Can you just imagine the shear number of drivers Microsoft would have to test against to verify no conflicts. We would never see updates if Microsoft had to verify no conflicts on every driver, software, application. How about pointing a finger at a third party for once? Even Apple has conflicts with updates and they develop, engineer, and oversea manufacturing, and create a lot of the applications and oversea third party apps. This is a very complex process and no OS even Chrome OS can guarantee no conflicts after a update of the OS.

  24. Not sure if my problem is related by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After the patch my box started complaining endlessly that it was not genuine windows, but when I went to activate Windows page it said I was already activated and just told me all of the great benefits of having genuine Windows and that I should install MS Defender.

    It non-activated dialog box wanted me to install some application to double activate it or something? I've had a tough time figuring out exactly what's up with it. The links all point to genuine microsoft.com websites, so it doesn't appear to be malware, but I'll be damned if it's not acting like malware.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Not sure if my problem is related by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Windows is telling you in no uncertain terms to convert as a HackInTosh!

    2. Re:Not sure if my problem is related by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened to me too. I uninstalled KB971033 and the messages went away. After reading about the fix update (installing that) and this thread I tried installing 971033 again and it seems to be fine now. We will see. I also had a driver install issue "not signed" due to the terrible update.

  25. Re:Lol, nobody cares. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Or your post simply disappears if it doesn't jibe with their views.

  26. Re:Modded "Troll" because it's true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha

    lol. you assume i still have an account.

  27. WWII credits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Non-American here. Truth is that Germany was pummeled from both sides - East AND West. While the Normandy landings and invasions from there on, as well as the collapse of Mussolini in Italy put a strain on the Germans in the West, the Soviets steamrolled them from the East. Just because they captured Berlin doesn't make them the sole victors of that war

    1. Re:WWII credits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well who dropped two fucking nukes and totally ended the war?
      Heres a hint, it wasn't the rusckies, so go suck on them thar radionuclides you little commie bitch!

    2. Re:WWII credits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? Well who dropped two fucking nukes and totally ended the war? Heres a hint, it wasn't the rusckies, so go suck on them thar radionuclides you little commie bitch!

      And yet Japan waited for the collapse of Manchuria to the advancing Soviet army before surrendering. The soviets were gearing up for an invasion of the mainland from newly liberated Manchuria, around the time the 2nd bomb fell. Historians will forever argue which of those two treats caused the Japanese to surrender.

      The US history books tells the story of America i the second world war they does not tell the story of the whole war, just like most Russian history books are more concerned with the the Russian theater and nobody really likes to talk about the amount of equipment the US shipped to the USSR doing the war, nor any of the event that took place in china doing the years prior to and doing the 2nd world war.

  28. Re:Almost true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were modding in this thread, all those mods have reverted now that you decided to comment in this thread. Just sayin'...

  29. Re:Modded "Troll" because it's true? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    lol. you assume i still have an account.

    Slashdot does not delete accounts, they just mod you into oblivion.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  30. VirtualBox by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    I had to uninstall a patch last week to get Virtualbox to work. Can't remember which one it was.

    1. Re:VirtualBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was that one. Happened to me too. At the time, there was no published information on it. I figured it out by trying the recent patches one by one...

  31. I know I was experiencing weird behavior in IE by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 2

    You know besides all the weird stuff you experience browsing with IE. I did a bunch of upgrades this past week (new AMD drivers, these MS patches) on my Win7 PC and I saw that the settings in IE kept getting reset. Security was cranked up so I couldn't download anything and it blew away my history by setting it to 0 days. I'd reset that stuff, reboot my PC and come back and see everything had been set back. I could only get rid of the problem by restoring my PC to last week. I thought I picked up a virus or that it was that Raptr junk in the AMD drivers but now I'm thinking it's this patch. (I know, I should use Chrome more. It's installed here and I do use it but I use IE as well.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  32. Update way worse than described. by phizi0n · · Score: 2

    Pretty much anything that needed elevated privileges would fail to run even if you were running on an admin account and gave UAC permission. Even my TV recordings failed while the update was applied and at first I thought it was my video driver update that I did just before manually allowing windows update to install the patch. Because I had manually installed it, I did not automatically get the removal patch and had no idea wtf was going on until I dug through several posts about driver installation problems (that I did not have) to finally find that it was wrecking far more than just driver installation.

  33. Forbes has no standing to complain by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forbes faithfully parroted every Gartner study fully bought for by Microsoft, like the Total Cost of Ownership. It claimed Microsoft has reached a "utility" status and it should be considered a "widows-and-orphans" stock. It actively contributed to the culture of lazy CIOs choosing Microsoft because no one got fired for choosing Microsoft. It turned a blind eye to every illegal maneuver by Microsoft. Now, suddenly, it is blasting Microsoft? I think Microsoft is a lesser evil than Forbes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  34. This is not the reason to disable win update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there was an annoying bad update that was subsequently fixed.
    Sure, it's annoying and shouldn't happen but the real problem with windows update is that it just decides when it's going to turn off your computer.
    It gives you a couple of days warning, but maybe I don't want to turn off my computer for a couple of days.
    Maybe I'm not babysitting my computer every day of the week, and I expect it to still be doing what it was doing when I last left it.
    This is why I disable windows update.

  35. WWII credits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tide was turned by the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad. The war was won at the Battle of Kursk,
    By the time the Normandy landing took place, Belarus was already liberated, SSSR had restored its pre-war borders, and the Red Army was pushing into Poland. All Normandy accomplished was halting the Soviet advance at Berlin.

    Remember that 90% of the Reich's forces were focused on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Union won the war because it won the bloody war, no amount of revisionism changes that.

  36. Or, maybe deliberate? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "... one may reasonably conjecture that MS is not exerting strong efforts on quality control."

    One may reasonably conjecture that a Microsoft employee deliberately caused problems so that people will buy new computers, with another version of Windows. If that was done at the request of top management is not known.

  37. ROTFLMAO! You actually USE Internet Exploder?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, brave soul.

    The only time I pull that insecure piece of trash out is when I absolutely HAVE to use it because some dipshit coded the site with IE specific java or some crap. Other than that, it's retarded to use that insecure piece of shit for anything. Nothing tied into the core system like I.E. is will ever be 'secure' so just drop it.

    No update needed.

  38. 200 armies for USSR, 60 for whole of west by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    Hitler deployed 200 out of his 300 armies for operation yellow - the campaign against USSR. 40 were helping Mussolini, 60 were left for the western operation of US, UK, Australia, Canada and others. Yet USSR reached Berlin before the western forces. Enough said.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  39. Yes, until there is a decent snapshotting FS by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    I run plenty of alpha, beta and otherwise buggy Linux systems. But because I use snapshots in file systems, recovery from bad updates is trivial. Microsoft is stuck in the 20th century.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  40. Automatic updates are a pain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when I used Windows (I think it was 98), I turned off automatic updates after the first time it did the lets install updates thing when I wanted to shut down. After that I did updates manually a week or two after they first came out. Also, before each update I did a restore point just in case of problems. A restore point will not cure all problems, but it can help sometimes.

    Now I run Linux. It has been so much more trouble-free than Windows ever was. I have a seperate drive partition where I store all personal data. That partition (and certain folders on other partitions) are backed up every week or two. I have 2 USB hard drives that I use for this purpose, one of which is kept off-site. Also, all of the data backed up is also copied to the data partition on my two laptop's hard drives. Much of the data (but not all) is also copied to my tablet (it has a 16Gb SSD, and a 32Gb SDHC card).

    The point of all of this? Linux takes 15 minutes to install on my slowest computer. Another 45 minutes to copy my data back, and update the system, and a few minutes to adjust a few settings. So slightly over an hour to start completely over and have my system back up and running just like nothing ever happened. It takes longer than that to find, download, and install the drivers for the hardware for Windows!

  41. Layoffs by nateman1352 · · Score: 3

    So Microsoft starts laying off 18,000 employees in several waves starting in July this year. One of the first groups that was hit hard by layoffs was QA (mostly contract workers so they are easy to let go.) Within that, the QA department responsible for testing OS security patches was hit the hardest...

    So now we are having a bunch of problems with botched updates that weren't tested sufficiently, go figure!

    1. Re:Layoffs by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nice. But as the customers are locked-in anyways, why would they care?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  42. Not Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forbes recently added a blog section that lets anybody say whatever crazy thing they want to say. This is no more Forbes saying something than Geocities or Blogspot saying something

  43. Forbes didn't say anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is a blog hosted on Forbes. It's the opinion of one guy, not a statement by Forbes.

  44. Re:Almost true by ruir · · Score: 1

    Nobody said it is a joke, mind you.

  45. no numbers by jgowen · · Score: 1

    Mon 12/15/2014 8:49 am. The article refers to bricked PCs, but no statistics on the frequency -- a common journalist practice. I.e., "ICE CAUSES CANCER" -- it probably has at least once somewhere, but *how often*? Tell me percentage of bricked PCs or tell me another story....

  46. language matters by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Malware implies malicious intent. This patch is just unintentionally buggy. Not the same thing.

  47. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the implication that automation can entirely replace actual user testing is also just as false. Both are essential. Automated tests are really good for testing that numerous specific tasks produce the expected results across a wide variety of specific configurations, but can never account for users doing things the tests didn't account for. You need automated tests, internal QA testers, and preferably also external beta testers, and even then you will NOT catch everything (or even anywhere close to everything) before release, given the complexity of modern systems. With security patches it is an order of magnitude worse because you don't have the luxury of time. Large customers demand the fix NOW and not only does it have to be now it has to be perfect. Both expectations are unrealistic in many cases, yet those demands continue. Even open source can't escape such issue, as a recent example the first round of patches for Bash didn't fix even some fairly trivial variations of the original problems, and various past fixes for other issues have broken things with quite a bit of regularity.

  48. Yes, MS is getting sloppy with its updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last week's Window's update stopped all of my Excel 2007 macros from working. Microsoft had no answers except to suggest my workbooks were corrupted (all of them? right after the update? really?) and I should buy a later version of Excel. Searching online I discovered that many others had the same problem and someone had discovered a solution. Amazing that MS didn't know about that solution.

  49. That's sometimes file corruption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And also, if running Windows 7, never, ever, ever, under any possible circumstance load KB971033. Don't load it manually, don't let it load automatically, don't let your friends load it, don't even think about it just avoid it at all costs. If you do (or in this case did) load it you're setting yourself up for potentially hours of fruitless troubleshooting regardless of whether you purchased Windows 7 off the shelf, bought an upgrade, got it OEM with a PC, or got it by any other means. When WGA breaks or any file or setting that it cares about ever gets corrupted for any reason (including hardware failures or bugs) it automatically decides it's YOUR fault and disables your activation with essentially no recourse unless you want to waste a ton of your (and likely other people's) time trying to clean up its mess. The very first thing I do when installing Windows 7 (and I always install it with "ask me later" or "never install updates" initially until AFTER I've done this) is to go into Windows Update, select KB971033, and "hide" it so nobody should even install that atrocity by accident.
    If necessary, reinstall/refresh Windows to get rid of it, and then do the above.

  50. Actually there is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is absolutely no way this patch should have been able to pass a competent Q/A test."

    *If* all your systems actually ARE running invalid Windows licenses, that behavior would be correct, and expected, and would have passed any such testing. Multiple vendors/OS images doesn't guarantee that's not the case, though makes it less likely on average.

    Also, if all of your systems had KB971033 it's partially your own fault for allowing that piece of crap on your systems. NEVER load that update or allow it to load, even if all of your systems are appropriately licensed and validated. Just hide it in Windows Update before it can do its damage.

  51. Forbes doesn't have an opinion on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title is a bit misleading. It implies that this article is some type of official Forbes statement. Their "contributor" articles are solely the opinions of their authors, just as it says at the top of the article. Forbes.com essentially became a content farm quite a while ago. The articles found therein may or may not involve journalism, facts or any reasonable information.