Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Cripples Windows Update To Prevent Incompatible Drivers

Posted by Soulskill on from the that's-not-how-this-works dept.

jones_supa writes: A file called Disable_Windowsupdate.exe — probably malware, right? It's actually a "helper" utility from Samsung, for which their reasoning is: "When you enable Windows updates, it will install the Default Drivers for all the hardware no laptop which may or may not work. For example if there is USB 3.0 on laptop, the ports may not work with the installation of updates. So to prevent this, SW Update tool will prevent the Windows updates." Too bad that the solution means disabling all critical security updates as well. This isn't the first time an OEM has compromised the security of its users. From earlier this year, we remember the Superfish adware from Lenovo, and system security being compromised by the LG split screen software.

67 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. What? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've got to be fucking shitting me?

    --
    - Dan
    1. Re:What? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does their warranty cover hacked laptop?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen windows updates fuck a LOT of drivers over the years. Like picking up video drivers that either screw the display (video modes all fucked up) or even make the machine BSOD (so much for WHQL). Sometimes a driver rollback (in device manager) was enough, sometimes you had to boot with last known good config or safe mode to even get to the desktop. I could live with that much, but nowadays MS has pushed 12+ updates as "important" that are simply nagware to install that Win 10 abomination so I've finally disabled automatic updates.

    3. Re:What? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 4, Funny

      That'll be one hell of a class action lawsuit, I'm almost tempted to buy a Samsung laptop and just leave it plugged in until it's compromised so I can join the compensation gravy train.

      --
      - Dan
    4. Re:What? by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Second semester law school: unconscionable contracts are unenforceable.

      Aside from any contractual obligations between Samsung and Microsoft that would affect this, and you can bet there are some.

      The lesson here, boys and girls, don't get legal advice from first semester law students. Consult a real lawyer.

    5. Re:What? by CauseBy · · Score: 2

      My layperson's understanding is that the 'unconscionable' thing is practically impossible to get a positive ruling on, and has never been done for EULAs. If you are a 'real lawyer' then you can trump my lay understanding by citing a court case. Otherwise I think GP is right unfortunately.

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windows Updates only installs drivers if "Recommended updates" is enabled. It will never try to update drivers if you are only receiving critical/important updates.

      Samsung are a bunch of liars.

    7. Re:What? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      and has never been done for EULAs.

      The terms for click through EULAs that you don't see until AFTER you've made your purchase and unpacked the goods are mostly ignored by the courts as well.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:What? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Who gives a shit about that. I wanted them to be sued for felony - hacking my laptop to prevent windows security updates. Potential RICO charges as well.

      Technically it was still their laptop when the software was installed...How was it yours when it was still at the factory having the image slapped onto the hard drive?

    9. Re: What? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 2

      Unless they're fighting the EU court, they're not exactly renowned for being lenient.

      Which I'm thankful for.

      --
      - Dan
    10. Re:What? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's especially insane because, while grabbing drivers from Windows Update is the default behavior, you can turn that off without disabling Windows Update.

      "System Properties" -> "Hardware" -> "Device Installation Settings". There's not even any registry grovelling or other esoteric nonsense involved.

      Things just get worse because, even if enabled, the Windows Update provided drivers will only be applied if no drivers are available locally(if drivers are available; but Windows Update has newer ones, they'll be listed as optional updates; but only installed with manual user intervention). So all Samsung has to do is add their drivers to the OS driver store (pnputil -a, not very hard) and the OS will apply them before even heading out to check for new ones, unless there is something egregiously wrong with them(if memory serves, unsigned drivers are treated as lower ranked than signed drivers when determining 'best driver available', and drivers that don't list the PCI/USB PID/VID, but have been forcibly applied, may also rank lower than drivers that do specify the matching PID/VID).

      So, in summary and conclusion, this whole thing is an unbelievable clusterfuck and it isn't even clear why Samsung would think it necessary in order to ensure the drivers that they want installed get installed; much less how they could possibly think that the security consequences were worth it. Only its finite complexity saves this situation from fractal stupidity.

    11. Re:What? by taustin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not, in fact, a lawyer, but I do know how to use Google (unlike so many here). For instance, I can, without any adult help, open up my web browser, and type in http://www.google.com/ and go to a convenient search engine. In the search box for that search engine, I can type in "eula struck down as unconscionable" and click on the button labeled "Search." And get results such as

      this, which talks about Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., in which Linden's TOS (specifically, the arbitration clause) is struck down as unconscionable not once, not twice, but at least three or four different times and ways ("procedural unconscionability" and "substantive unconscionability" in two different ways, and then again on the latter after Linden amended it).

      Wired also covers Gatton v. T-Mobile, again on an arbitration clause, and ruled unconscionable both procedurally and substantively. Also unconscionable for prohibiting class action lawsuits, because "that form of litigation is often the only means of stopping and punishing corporate wrongdoing." It also discusses Douglas v. U.S. District Court, which is about changing the terms of a contact after it has been signed, and which was ruled unconscionable. Gatton is often cited as recognizing that all click-wrap license have an element of unconscionability that must be considered by the court.

      This has a link to this", which is a ruling on McKee v. AT&T, ruing their arbitration clause unconscionable.

      Note that these are the first three results on the search, and the fourth is on McKee v. AT&T again.

      Also note that these are all different courts, state and federal, all over the country.

      Unconscionability is an affirmative defense - the defendant has to demonstrate why the contract is unconscionable, but it does, in fact, happen, and more importantly, it took me, literally, less than ten seconds to find example (and five of that was waiting for the browser to open.)

      To quote the third link, you may now feed my cats for a week.

    12. Re:What? by taustin · · Score: 3

      I use Internet Explorer, primarily so that I can say so on Slashdot and piss off the outrage monkeys.

    13. Re:What? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The only fully-automatic updates happen when a device previously unknown to the OS gets plugged in. Windows will check the local driver store for a driver and, unless the 'Device Installation Settings' option is toggled off, will then try Windows Update if nothing is available locally.

      Once the hardware is considered 'installed', future updates will show up in 'optional'. That's what's so weird: if Samsung's USB3 controller is utterly fucked up, or whatever the sorry misadventure may be, so long as they preload whatever ghastly pile of shims and bodges covers up the problem, the OS will never take further action. Unless they are also doing something utterly dodgy like breaking their driver signatures.

      It's doubly depressing because Samsung is either the producer of the hardware, in which case they can either provide MS with the correct driver, or use device ID data that won't trigger loading of default drivers; or they are just slapping somebody else' chips on the board, in which case they should have picked a more competent supplier; if you are just system-integrating that's pretty much your job. Pitiful, either way.

  2. Terrible twos by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Samsung: You're terrible programmers!

    Microsoft: No, you are terrible programmers!

    Kids, kids, you'really both terrible.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Terrible twos by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem:
      Drivers to accommodate lack of open standards.
      Back in the good old day,
      CGA/EGA/VGA they followed their specs.
      Serial and Parallel they followed a common spec.

      Then Windows came popular with the support of drivers. This allowed hardware makers to stop playing by the rules thus creating a huge sets of incompatible SVGA (Visa more or less won) Then we went to 3D and all was lost. USB, different Wireless drivers.... Network cards...
      For some reasons allowing this is good, because it allowed them to innovate and create new features. But on the other side, it threw out the idea of Open Hardware standards out the window.

      Because the lack of such good standards, It creates systems that have driver issues.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, basically they have shit hardware or shit drivers, and the only way they can think of to fix this is to prevent your operating system from trying to apply updates?

    This sounds like incompetence all the way around, and is on-going proof of why I hate OEM laptops. Because they fill them with so much garbage.

    It seems like every time I hear anything about Samsung, I find myself thinking "nope, I would never buy their crap".

    And, once again, corporations put their own crappy "innovation" ahead of the needs of their customers.

    Pathetic.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the hardware doesn't work with default Windows or Linux distribution, it's shit. (think clean install).

      Years ago at work, we got some new desktops.

      The desktops had 4GB of RAM, but the Windows XP Pro on them could only see 3GB. One of the guys decided to put Windows 2003 on the machines to get access to all the RAM.

      It turns out there were NO drivers for that hardware which existed for Windows 2003, and even getting back to XP Pro proved exceedingly difficult because ... it was almost impossible to find the drivers again as they basically weren't published anywhere. Essentially this machine could only work with the OEM image made up of drivers and other custom crap which were almost impossible to find.

      To add insult to injury, whatever idiot had ordered them got us some new-fangled wide screen monitors. The problem was that while the actual resolution of the monitor was a 4:3 aspect ratio ... the actual pixels were flattened so that in its native resolution the screen drew circles as flattened ovals.

      I 100% agree with you. Because non-standard crap from vendors makes for utter garbage machines.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Wow ... by darniil · · Score: 2

      To add insult to injury, whatever idiot had ordered them got us some new-fangled wide screen monitors. The problem was that while the actual resolution of the monitor was a 4:3 aspect ratio ... the actual pixels were flattened so that in its native resolution the screen drew circles as flattened ovals.

      I... what?

      I just sat and stared at my screen in utter shock after reading that. Can you say where you got that equipment from - who built it, sold it, etc?

    3. Re:Wow ... by trevc · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the hardware doesn't work with default Windows or Linux distribution, it's shit. (think clean install).

      Years ago at work, we got some new desktops.

      The desktops had 4GB of RAM, but the Windows XP Pro on them could only see 3GB. One of the guys decided to put Windows 2003 on the machines to get access to all the RAM.

      It turns out there were NO drivers for that hardware which existed for Windows 2003, and even getting back to XP Pro proved exceedingly difficult because ... it was almost impossible to find the drivers again as they basically weren't published anywhere. Essentially this machine could only work with the OEM image made up of drivers and other custom crap which were almost impossible to find.

      To add insult to injury, whatever idiot had ordered them got us some new-fangled wide screen monitors. The problem was that while the actual resolution of the monitor was a 4:3 aspect ratio ... the actual pixels were flattened so that in its native resolution the screen drew circles as flattened ovals.

      I 100% agree with you. Because non-standard crap from vendors makes for utter garbage machines.

      I get the feeling that maybe you have no idea what you are doing....

    4. Re:Wow ... by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Well, you screwed up. Windows 2003 is based on XP-64. You should've looked for XP-64 drivers and they would have installed just fine.

      And it sounds like you didn't install the proper video adapter drivers or your display had a shitty EDID. Plenty of widescreen monitors support 4:3 resolutions and scale to fit the panel. Have since the early 90s, AFAIA.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:Wow ... by rjmx · · Score: 4, Funny

      > They still get the fewest complaints on NewEgg for much of their stuff for a reason

      The reason being that nobody can keep one of them running long enough to file a complaint?

    6. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It was the dumbest monitor I ever saw.

      I'm pretty sure it was a Dell product, it was a slightly non-standard resolution, and didn't have a single resolution it could do which matched the physical aspect ratio. All they did was make a monitor with rectangular pixels.

      We couldn't understand the point behind it.

      Near as I can figure, and some morons in marketing decided to "make teh widescreen for teh movies".

      But it was useless for both graphics and videos, because graphics it couldn't draw a circle, and videos it just flattened the image as well.

      It basically felt like the company got swindled and bought some crappy desktops targeted to home users to pretend like they were all fancy, but were, in fact, utter crap.

      A lot of people spent a lot of time grumbling about it. It was quite pathetic.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well, you screwed up. Windows 2003 is based on XP-64. You should've looked for XP-64 drivers and they would have installed just fine.

      There's two problems with that:

      1) There sure as hell is a 32-bit version of Windows 2003, and these were definitely 32-bit machines
      2) The drivers simply did not exist. Dell had never made them for Windows 2003

      And it sounds like you didn't install the proper video adapter drivers or your display had a shitty EDID

      Look, you may not believe it, but I don't give a fuck.

      As delivered to us, out of the box from the manufacturer, the monitor in its own settings to list its possible resolutions, as well as the documentation for the monitor simply did not list an actual wide screen resolution. Every single resolution this could do was a 4:3 aspect ratio.

      My guess is this was some shitty marketing ploy when widescreen monitors were first becoming popular with consumers.

      I didn't build the damned thing. As delivered to IT and plunked on our desks, these things were garbage. They were the most nonsensical monitors I've ever seen.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Wow ... by mlts · · Score: 2

      I had a laptop like that. It had drivers which were only in the OEM image, and the only way I still had the image was because I used ghost and copied the hard disk stuff somewhere safe.

      I eventually was able to find the real OEM for the USB 2 drivers after looking by PCI ID, but the video card maker refused to give drivers, saying only the OEM had say in that, so I wound up using a third party's drivers that actually could make the video work. Of course, after the laptop's fan bearings went south and sounded like a jet plane taking off, I just yanked the hard drive for an external device and placed the carcass in a drawer, if I ever might have to use it again.

      With Windows post-Vista, drivers should never be an issue. By default, the driver OEM needs to register their software with Windows Update, so on initial install, the machine can go out, fetch the drivers and autoinstall them.

      In any case, it is still wise (assuming this is not an enterprise with a large amount of machines) to either pull the HDD (again, if possible), image it off somewhere safe, or boot the machine to Ghost or CloneZilla and save the HDD image. This way, if there is a driver present, it can be found, and the machine can always be returned to its factory state should the need arise.

    9. Re:Wow ... by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Windows 2003 had a 64 bit version, but Windows 2003 mainly was 32 bit. If you used the /PAE option on the 32 bit edition, you could get past the 4GB barrier on that OS... but the caceat was only if you had the enterprise or data center editions (which got you to 32 GB or 64 GB respectively.)

      So, I do agree with the parent... the ability to get past 4GB did exist, but required a bunch of flaming hoops to go through.

      As for monitors, I've seen lots of screwy, nonsensical stuff, stuff (such as a glitch on a SCSI card causing the monitor to tint green), so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

    10. Re:Wow ... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This one is completely on Samsung.

      There is nothing stopping them from getting WHQL certification of their OEM drivers and submitting them to Microsoft. If their drivers are written properly (with proper hardware identification strings for PCI / USB / ACPI devices) then they will apply before generic drivers, and this isn't even a problem.

      Funny how we don't hear about this from Acer / Dell / HP / Lenovo / etc...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:Wow ... by macs4all · · Score: 2

      the only thing stopping them from getting WHQL on their drivers is the fact that their crapware drivers wouldn't pass WHQL

      There, FTFY.

    12. Re: Wow ... by lgw · · Score: 2

      It's about when manufacturers go to some cheap knock-off that closely enough matches some other component in the market close enough to get the wrong drivers.

      And this doesn't happen by accident. Every component self-identifies in some way during POST, or during Windows plug-and-play scan. Driver INF files list the ID strings to match against. Building a knock-off that identifies itself as the "real" product to avoid driver certification is an old trick, but at least it's understandable why someone would do it. Deliberately building a component that identifies as an existing product, but needs your own drivers? The mind boggles.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Wow ... by TimothyDavis · · Score: 2

      There is nothing stopping them from getting WHQL certification of their OEM drivers and submitting them to Microsoft. If their drivers are written properly (with proper hardware identification strings for PCI / USB / ACPI devices) then they will apply before generic drivers, and this isn't even a problem.

      PCI is the only bus type you listed that includes OEM information embedded in the device identifier (using the subsystem VendorID). USB doesn't, and for the most part, neither does ACPI.

      Additionally, OEMs don't typically certify device drivers through WHQL. It is usually the IHV that certifies the component/driver, and the OEM certifies the system consisting of components from different IHVs.

  4. If true then Samsung is dead to me by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If true then I guess I won't be buying any Samsung computers anytime soon. A company that stupid simply isn't worth doing business with. Add this to the Samsung TVs that listen to your living room and the bloatware on their Android devices and I pretty much can't see any reason to buy from Samsung these days.

    1. Re:If true then Samsung is dead to me by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its an issue because Samsung's voice recognition wasn't done on the TV. They shipped the captured audio to servers in their back office, unencrypted iirc. So your intimate small-talk with your partner is recorded live and sent out to some nameless destination free for all to listen to. I don't know about you, but I consider that an incredible invasion of privacy.

    2. Re:If true then Samsung is dead to me by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ya, it did, at least the unencrypted part.

      http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

      Ya, it did, at least the recording private conversations part.

      http://www.cnet.com/news/samsu...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. Uhhhh by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Informative

    *cough*

    1. Re:Uhhhh by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Sign in to the dashboard with your Microsoft account,"

      No, go fuck yourself. Give me control over my updates/drivers inside the OS and don't make me sign up for your fucking spam in order to have a WORKING operating system.

      The linked page was for hardware developers to submit their drivers to Microsoft so that they can be included in updates.

      But I'm sure you realized that...

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:Uhhhh by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Once again you are so convinced you are right you launch into a tirade, inadvertently showing everyone you get easily confused and are not as informed as you assume you are. Oops.

  6. Not exactly like Superfish by Sun · · Score: 2

    This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.

    This reminds me of when someone got Verisign to issue a signed certificate saying "microsoft.com". Clearly Verisign, and not MS's, fault.

    It turned out Microsoft could not issue a revocation, because Internet explorer does not check CRLs. MS's fault, right? Wrong. They were not testing CRLs because verisign would not bring up the web server that issues them, causing each and every SSL connection to time out. MS preferred, reasonably IMHO, to be insecure over not working.

    Shachar

    1. Re:Not exactly like Superfish by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.

      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      --Clark's corollary to Hanlon's Razor after Clarke's 3rd Law

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Not exactly like Superfish by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.

      This is like selling a house without fuses in the electric circuits. Everything works, but is dangerous to use.

  7. cool by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Disabling windows update - at least automatically - is a good idea.

    It kept installing that reminder about Windows 10 coming soon.

    I don't want Windows 10 - I hear it disables some critical software (Solitaire)

  8. I've lost track of how many times I've been burned by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've lost track of how many times I've been burned by a driver update from Microsoft that turned out to be incompatible with my hardware, likely because Windows Update misidentified my hardware as compatible with the driver. I no longer install any drivers through Windows Update, but instead go to the vendors sites and get them straight from the source.

    Fortunately, the drivers are always optional updates, so you can just flag them as hidden and ignore them.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  9. Re:Hardware or driver's issues? by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can think of two solutions on how to solve this problem.

    1) Pin the installed OEM drivers, so that Windows understands that no other drivers should be installed for these device IDs.

    or

    2) In the PCI device ID, add extra information that this device is a special Samsung variant, and then Windows knows that the generic driver for that device is not compatible.

    I'm not sure if these solutions are possible, if someone knows more then please let me know.

  10. Re:well done. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm trying to calculate just how much Kool-Aid you have to drink until "the OS decided to reboot all on its own" becomes acceptable behavior.

  11. Fine, as long as they assume the risk by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would've been far simpler and less controversial for Samsung to just turn off the Windows 8/10 equivalent of Windows 7's "[right click on your computer's icon]->Device Installation settings->Do you want Windows to download driver software and realistic icons for your devices" option in the "Devices and Drivers" control panel and provide their own "driver update" program. I don't have a Samsung, for all I know, they may already have a "driver update" program. I know at least 2 major Windows-PC vendors do have their own "update" programs that include alerting users when their drivers are out of date, and it wouldn't surprise me if Samsung was doing the same.

    Given what Samsung is doing, if Samsung provides its own "Samsung Update" that (by default) automatically takes all critical Microsoft Updates and which at least gives the user the option of taking vetted non-critical updates (or even better all Windows updates EXCEPT conflicting driver updates) AND keeps this running as long as Microsoft continues to allow access to its "Windows Update" functionality (which is presumably longer than the "10 years" it promises to keep fixing security holes) then I can see this being "not all that dangerous." However, if they do this they need to make it VERY clear to the buyer that Samsung, not Microsoft, is taking responsibility for keeping the operating system up to date.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  12. Re:I've lost track of how many times I've been bur by asimons04 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, not all driver updates fall under the optional updates. I agree that most are, but I had a client come to me saying his wireless driver was "missing". It was installed, but non-functional. Oddly, it didn't show a "failed to start" yellow triangle or any other anomalies in the device manager. I rolled back the driver and checked Windows Update to find an "Intel Centrino Wireless-N" critical update. It kept installing automatically until I hid the update. It is rare that this happens, but does from time-to-time.

  13. My Samsung Laptop by MPAB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bought a Samsung laptop. i5, 6gb ram, Hybrid NVIDIA and Intel graphics, 750gb HDD, DVD burner. It is light, well powered and cost efficient back in 2011. Windows 7-64 bit. Problem is: Even the keyboard hotkeys such as screen brightness, WiFi, etc. work only through a "Control panel" that takes ages to load. Volume keys don't work within a game and sometimes the trackpad stops working after sleeping. And also I don't dare installing Linux on it because I read about severe cases of linux bricking the UEFI and rendering the laptop completerly useless.

    Alas, after you start it up (either from off or sleeping) and wait the 10-15 minutes for the HDD to calm down (after stripping down the startup, defragmenting, ccleaner and the such) it runs really well.

  14. Re:Hardware or driver's issues? by Khyber · · Score: 2

    You're missing the third option.

    3. Tell Microsoft to quit forcing THEIR drivers on hardware. Trying to get IGPs to install is a pain in the ass. Default WDDM drivers for Vista/7 on an Intel 945GM IGP do not provide OpenGL support, and would not let me instal the actual Intel drivers w/OpenGL support citing "Microsoft's drivers are newer."

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. Re:Unfortunately, they're right by neilo_1701D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I allow Windows Update to "update" the driver for my Bluetooth stick, it doesn't work any longer.

    I've seen that problem before on a Bluetooth stick. The real issue was that I had purchased some Chinese ripoff clone of another product (I didn't know at the time that's what I was doing. We learn.); and the original company had released updated drivers to Microsoft. These new drivers worked just fine with the oem product, but something in the ripoff product didn't work with the new drivers, and the stick stopped working. I had to back the drivers out, re-install the original drivers and mark that particular update as "do not install".

    I've no idea if the original company (who had their gear ripped off) spiked the driver deliberately or simple broke it by accident.

  16. Automatic updates by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Disabling windows update - at least automatically - is a good idea.

    Maybe for a corporation with an IT staff. If you are like me and have to support small numbers of technologically illiterate people then automatic updates are a blessing. Otherwise those machines would literally never get updated. Ever.

    Though honestly as the designated family techie the best thing (for my sanity) I ever did was move my parents to Apple products. Not so much because I think they are inherently better but they do result in less tech support problems (for me) and I got them support contracts (1on1 and Applecare) so Apple can and does deal with the majority of their technical issues rather than me. When my dad was on Windows I'd get at least 2-3 calls a month about something not working. Now I get maybe 1 call every 6 months and it's usually much easier to resolve.

  17. and I thought Linux had driver issues by davydagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linux might have some slight incompatiblity with an ever shrinking list of now obscure hardware. But when it works, it works. There is nothing this fucked up about linux drives. At worst, a few of them simply don't have the features we'd like, but nothing catastrophic.

    1. Re:and I thought Linux had driver issues by nvm_my_comment · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux driver have come a long way. 15 years ago it was a nightmarish hell 10 years ago hell. 5 years ago, mostly with wifi not working out of the box and often sound. nowadays it usually just works. The next battle is better video driver, firmware blob included in some device, and anything ARM.

    2. Re:and I thought Linux had driver issues by PPH · · Score: 2

      And most* Linux updaters allow the locking of individual components. So if my hardware requires some non standard tweaked up driver, I can fix it so that it won't pull down a 'standard' driver and bork my system.

      *As far as I know. I've not encountered one that didn't support this level of granularity.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  18. If only... by chrish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I could have sworn MS had some way for OEMs to get drivers certified, and provided by Windows Update directly...

    --
    - chrish
  19. Tha's a tough one there... by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely there must be a way to have avoided this.

    Maybe Microsoft should set up some kind of... Lab. To certify the Quality of Hardware for Windows. And maybe they could make it really simple for vendors like Samsung to send them copies of drivers for certification so that Windows Update would be aware that they existed.

    And maybe, instead of demanding millions of dollars in fees for this service, they could charge something simple up front like just $250 and then not cause any more problems. Then Samsung would have been able to run through a quick certification process and avoided all of this trouble.

    Man, why does Microsoft make it so hard for vendors to get their devices supported?

  20. Re:well done. by Minwee · · Score: 2

    That would be when you click the "No, not now! I'm in the middle of giving a presentation to the board!" button, and then it responds with "Well, FINE. I'm tired of waiting and next time I WON'T ASK YOU."

    Or when you don't respond quickly enough and it takes your lack of response as consent.

    And then it decides to reboot on its own.

  21. For large values of stupidity by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.

    Sufficiently large values of stupidity asymptotically approach maliciousness. In other words if the action is dumb enough there is no effective difference.

  22. Re:Unfortunately, they're right by Junta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well there's certainly a prominent example of a company taking explicit aim to *break* knock-off devices in a driver update:
    http://arstechnica.com/informa...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  23. Re:Unfortunately, they're right by prefect42 · · Score: 2

    It happened to me with genuine products. Logitech keyboard/mouse that had a bluetooth receiver. Windows 7 decided it should have a new shiny bluetooth 3 driver installed for it which didn't work, which lost you access to the keyboard and mouse. Downgrade and pin, as you say, or disable the bluetooth entirely and have it act just as a keyboard/mouse.

    --

    jh

  24. Re:This is why Microsoft by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look at the Vista fiasco. OEMs had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the privilege model (which has been in the UNIX world for decades, and was in the Mac world for at least five years) where they don't have all their stuff run with admin rights. Then, when MS added some fundamental security features like ASLR, forcing drivers to be rewritten, OEMs shipped alpha-quality code, then blamed the crashes on MS.

  25. Re:The problem is broken updates by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Then Samsung should make sure the drivers they supply to Microsoft work. Samsung holds the reins here. Microsoft can't help it if Samsung's drivers break stuff. If Samsung haven't provided their own drivers to be included in Windows Update, then that's their fault. If it is Microsoft's fault, why does this work flawlessly for all other manufacturers, and indeed Samsung until this incident?

  26. Re:well done. by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm trying to calculate just how much cheap moonshine you have to drink until a prompt where the computer asks if you want to reboot now, or not counts as "the OS decided to reboot all on its own".

    Microsoft update WILL reboot on its own. It'll pester you for a few days then it literally reboots your computer without giving you a choice.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  27. Well in some cases it is a problem. by Megol · · Score: 2

    I had to disable some drivers from updating to keep my computer running. The drivers installed automatically were not only older, they didn't work for my configuration. For most end users an automatically installed update making their computer non-bootable is a huge problem.

    That said there have to be a better way to do this, what about a mechanism where an OEM can declare some drivers untouchable for Windows update? Or even making the hardware manufacturers/device driver writers use the existing hardware detecting mechanisms correctly?

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Re:well done. by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

    Or a slight variation :
    you want to boot your laptop for a presentation in front of a few hundred people.
    It's 8:50 in the morning, your presentation is at 9:00.
    You get a nice blue screen that tells you "Please wait till 30 updates are installed". Then you get "Please wait till 200000 files are updated".
    It often takes more than 30 minutes to do so.

  30. Not just dangerous, but completely unnecessary. by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

    Driver updates offered via Windows Update are always listed as "optional". Even with automatic updates enabled they would have to be chosen manually before they would be installed. On top of that, it would be easy to uninstall such an update via "Progams and Features" in Control Panel, or to click on "Roll Back Driver" in Device Manager.

    Disabling updates to prevent bad driver installations is both misguided and unnecessary.

  31. Re:well done. by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    Back when the (then) newest version of Windows would reboot when there was a problem instead of giving you a BSOD with the option to kill whatever caused it and try to continue, I had a friend who was a senior developer. He actually insisted that if something went badly wrong, he wanted his computer to reboot right then and there. He didn't care what program had crashed, he didn't want a chance to save his work, he just wanted it to reboot without asking. I never did understand his attitude, but I can only guess that a lot of people must have shared it because there wasn't the type of mass protest that I would have expected. Clearly, when it comes to Windows, spontaneous rebooting has been acceptable behavior for decades.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  32. The real problem is incompatible hardware by jonwil · · Score: 2

    The real problem is that the systems contain hardware that isn't compatible with the standard Windows drivers yet is still showing up in a way that Windows will think it is and will pull drivers via Windows Update.

    USB (even USB 3.0) is a documented standard that is supported out-of-the-box by Windows (and is likely part of the Intel chip-set they are using in the laptop), why would it need special drivers?