Slashdot Mirror


'Recommended' Windows 7 Update Is Breaking PCs With ASUS Motherboards (betanews.com)

Microsoft has made a bizarre tweak to an update for Windows 7 that can prevent some systems from booting. The Windows 7 update KB3133977 was switched from 'Optional' to 'Recommended' and Microsoft knew ahead of time the update would cause problems for some users but decided to do nothing about it. The update fixes a problem that stops BitLocker encrypting drives because of service crashes in svhost.exe. The update only causes a problem with ASUS motherboards. Microsoft says, "After you install update 3133977 on a Windows 7 x64-based system that includes an ASUS-based main board, the system does not start, and it generates a Secure Boot error on the ASUS BIOS screen. This problem occurs because ASUS allowed the main board to enable the Secure Boot process even though Windows 7 does not support this feature." The update wasn't causing many issues while it was optional. But now that it's recommended, more users have downloaded the update, and more users have experienced problems with the update. ASUS has provided a solution to the problem. Microsoft has also provided a solution, but you might not like it. Their solution in a nutshell: update to Windows 10.

28 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Another solution by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Install linux.

    1. Re: Another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I upgraded to 10 to solve this as Microsoft suggested... err well OS X. Close enough, and it did the trick. Suddenly my computer doesn't suck.

    2. Re:Another solution by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      And say goodbye to every piece of Windows only software that you own.

      Actually, there seems to be a *lot* of stuff that runs just fine under Wine, and even more stuff that works under Crossover.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Another solution by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much where I'm moving right now. Given the crap they're pulling with Win10 I eventually had to do it anyway. This now gives me a pretty good reason to not postpone it any further.

      Most programs I need are either available for Linux or are platform independent. And everything else runs fine in a VM where it's not only trivial to revert to a former state if an update fucks it up, it's also nothing that needs to be connected to the internet or has to get any private information that it might leak.

      Good riddance. Sorry, MS. You managed to turn yourself from required to redundant and now finally to simply dangerous to my data. And that your "solution" to the problem is telling your users to migrate to a platform that not only breaks compatibility but is also less appealing is the icing on the cake. What about those that CANNOT migrate?

      You are aware that at my current position it is actually EASIER to migrate to Linux than to Win10?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Another solution by mark-t · · Score: 2

      What it "needs" and what it actually gets are going to remain two very different things for all of the foreseeable future.

    5. Re:Another solution by donaldm · · Score: 2

      You're right about that. If Adobe were motivated to port CS to Debian, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

      I think they'd have to spin their own distro, though. CS is a complex suite and has enough trouble running on Windows. I can't imagine it being certified to work under even the top ten most popular distros.

      Just imagine the reaction from the FOSS community if Adobe were to put out AdobeOS.

      Well you could look at Linux equivalents to Adobe's Creative Suite/Cloud here . If you really insist on Adobe because it's Adobe then I really can't help, after all it's your money.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    6. Re:Another solution by donaldm · · Score: 2

      Why do you think I was trying to compile from source?

      Hint: it wouldn't install because of dependency failures.

      Then you have a problem with your Debian installation if you have dependency failures.

      Not sure what since you have not given us much to go on but I just tested out the "sudo apt-get install imagemagick" on Linux Mint which I run in a virtual machine and I had no problems. Of course I could have run the GUI install but for completeness I just went for the command line.

      The whole installation took less than a minute and this includes all dependences as well as imagemagick.

      It should be noted that "app-get" should report on the dependency failures and the packages they pertain to which would most likely be a one or more third party packages.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    7. Re:Another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you are just shifting the problem, not solving it

      As opposed to what option? Microsoft wants users to upgrade to Win10. Some users don't want to. So what alternatives are there?

      1. Get new software to provide what you need. (May require relearning your workflow if it's interface is too different than what you are used to.)

      2. Get new versions of existing software for your new system. (If OSS / freeware not much of an issue here, but if it's proprietary, expect to pay for it again. Regardless, this assumes that there IS a version of that software for the new system.)

      3. Run the existing software in a VM. (Not the best option unless you have the storage space to spare for the VM. Also assumes you are not using anything that's CPU / GPU intensive. The GPU in particular will have issues in VMs, as it requires support in the VM software to work and not all VM software gives good GPU support. (Games in particular are an issue.))

      4. Run the existing software in some API wrapper. (That has it's own issues, as people expect the API wrapper to "just work", where as in reality the API wrapper has to be configured correctly and most people refuse to even bother with it. Not to mention the API wrapper has to support the APIs used by the software or support enough of the APIs to allow a workaround to be used. (Installing needed codecs from the target API vs using the API wrapper to access the system's codecs for example.))

      Those are the options if you don't want to (or are unable to) use the new update / version from the developer. If anything, the fact that people would consider moving away from their current software typically means it's developer has screwed up enough that moving elsewhere is the easier option.

      Developers need to remember that if they want others to use their software, they have to please those other people. Microsoft has apparently forgotten this, and will pay the price for it. More and more people are moving to smart devices (a market Microsoft has no real influence in.), businesses need control over their workstations (and Microsoft keeps taking that control away, while simultaneously installing spyware on the machines of those who WILL CARE about them doing so.), computer nerds like control and customization of their systems (they left along time ago, or are holding on to the old version as long as they can.), and finally, people in general don't like being forced to trust someone who doesn't trust them. (Secure Boot enforces that situation, while Microsoft keeps abusing it.)

      Many people would prefer that Microsoft stopped with their BS, but unless you have access to Microsoft's source code / are an old school ASM hacker (and have Microsoft's signing keys for Secure Boot enabled systems), you can't change anything, and Microsoft seems perfectly happy to keep chugging along with abusing it's user-base. So unfortunately because "solving the problem" is not possible, "shifting the problem" is all that can be done.

    8. Re:Another solution by dwywit · · Score: 2

      Yep - got it in a VM. Some very useful tools there, and some that don't work at all.

      The thing about CS is, it's integrated. I've not found a Linux equivalent. There are linux equivalents for individual tools, but not an integrated solution.

      I browse distrowatch and livecdlist every couple of months to see what's new, and I'll try out whatever looks interesting. I'm willing to try most anything - I even installed Gentoo from scratch once, and I have a great deal of respect for those who write this software.

      P.S. academic pricing is a wonderful thing - CS 5.5 cost me about 1/4 of retail, that's a big deal anywhere, but it's yuuuge in Australia.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    9. Re:Another solution by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You? Probably nothing from the sounds of things. But the interesting thing about computers is that not everyone uses them for the same way. In the mean time Adobe Lightroom gets a "garbage" rating on WineHQ, and not even the current rolling release version.

    10. Re: Another solution by jawtheshark · · Score: 2

      Maybe. However to get something done quickly and cheaply, I'd take the janitor over Prof. Hawking any day.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    11. Re:Another solution by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yep, good enough for some, must mean good enough. The classic Linux line: It works for me so why are you complaining and not using Linux yet. Ok so you didn't say exactly that but really that's the problem everytime someone mentions Linux on Slashdot. Everyone assumes that everyone else works exactly like they do.

      GIMP works for some people. Those people are not the ones who fork out a monthly fee to a Photoshop subscription (> 7million people), or the exorbitant price for a standalone version in the first place (on top of those 7million). Also not using it to its full potential does not mean GIMP is an alternative. I don't use much if any of Photoshop's path forming or freestyle creation tools, which is something GIMP is apparently okay at. But it's a frigging woeful photo editor.

      It's also only one example. Linux is severely lacking in the creative content creation department. Partially due to licensing issues, but majorly due to lack of support from big players.

  2. Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't it appear like M$ is breaking Windows 7 and 8 to try to force "upgrades" to 10?

    1. Re:Simple question by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't it appear like M$ is breaking Windows 7 and 8 to try to force "upgrades" to 10?

      Not at all. It appears as though Microsoft is supporting Windows 7 fully and patching bugs like they always do.

      Now as to why ASUS motherboards didn't have an issue before this update that is a real interesting question, but since the solution is to disable a BIOS feature that was incompatible with Windows 7 in the first place the answer is no it doesn't appear like that at all.

    2. Re:Simple question by DaHat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it really bricking when a tweak of the bios is required to recover?

    3. Re:Simple question by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and no. Most Windows users don't understand any of this. They just know that things stopped working and they have no where to turn. Many are more likely to buy a brand new computer than to find someone who can fix it in five minutes. And Microsoft knows this.

    4. Re:Simple question by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      "Microsoft knew ahead of time the update would cause problems for some users but decided to do nothing about it." - this is what pisses me off the most. Maybe it was a legit bugfix and all but the fact they knew the possibility of bricking was there and didn't bother to tell their customers is beyond sleazy.

      Oh please, what's to tell. Computer reboots and a red screen pops up with instructions for customers to do exactly what Microsoft would have told them to do anyway which is disable a BIOS feature that's not supported by Windows but somehow has gotten a pass this far. Beyond lazy would have been not fixing a bug at all because it may affect some systems due to a 3rd party issue and a user who didn't setup their computer correctly.

  3. A new twist on ransomware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, Microsoft is now deliberately bricking computers, in an attempt to force Windows 10 onto them.

    Attention victim: We have locked your computer, and you won't be getting access to it anytime soon, unless you....what? No, we don't want bitcoins. We want you to install Windows 10. Give us your computer and nobody gets hurt. We swear we'll only spy on you a little.

    1. Re:A new twist on ransomware by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2

      Actually cars are a bad example of 'planned obsolescence', mostly because while some parts may fail the entire car does not. I have a car from the 1999 model year (so somewhere between July 1998 and June 1999 for production) and while it always had weird electrical bugs that caused the interior lights to flicker randomly at night at certain humility levels, and the Aluminium block engine broke after about 150k miles and needed to be replaced, and the A/C died for reasons unknown, and the transmission failed once and needed rebuilt.... Well after all of that the car still works nearly a decade after it was made.

      Sadly the 'road salt' here in the snow belt has caused the underbelly to begin to rust and so sometime soon it will fail inspection for the state, but even that doesn't mean the vehicle is unusable (just illegal to drive in my state). From the outside it still looks to be in very good condition and the engine (from a model several years newer) is in excellent shape. Even if we do consider that the end, 'wear and tear' is not the same as 'planned obsolescence'. I'm sure if I wanted to spend several times the value of the car I could 'save' it from needing to be scrapped even. If I never drove it during the winter and had a garage for it's entire lifetime I bet it would be just fine today as well.

      So no, the traditional car is not simply going to fail after a specific point in time because it was designed that way. However plenty of other things will. Electronics often more so than other areas. That said, MS is supporting Windows... By offering Windows 10 to users of 7 & 8. If you want continued support than install the latest version for no charge. Apple does this very thing, but we don't seem very concerned about that. How many versions of Mac OS X are we up to now? 12? 13? Several of those have bricked older hardware or simply not supported it. Not a popular thing to say on Slashdot, but to me I don't see a big difference.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:A new twist on ransomware by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I actually *do* see evidence that MS is breaking installed systems on purpose.

      P.S.: (from the summary)
      "...Microsoft knew ahead of time the update would cause problems for some users but decided to do nothing about it. The update fixes a problem that stops BitLocker encrypting drives because of service crashes in svhost.exe. The update only causes a problem with ASUS ..."

      Under normal circumstances I would berate you for not reading the article, but right now I'm just going to call you out on your inability to read the to the end of a paragraph.

      P.S: (also from the summary)
      "This problem occurs because ASUS allowed the main board to enable the Secure Boot process even though Windows 7 does not support this feature."

      You're saying MS is breaking an installed system on purpose by fixing a bug which triggers an issue that was previously silent cased by a different vendor and a user who set a BIOS setting that was incompatible with Windows 7 and always has been in the first place. This is the kind of stretch that causes people to stop taking anything you say seriously because derp derp MS BAD derp derp right?

      Now a more important question is just how good is ASUS's secure boot feature if while it was enabled and set to Windows UEFI it let a the computer boot a version of windows that didn't support UEFI Secure Boot and didn't have a signed kernel. But hey bashing ASUS isn't anywhere near as fun as bashing Microsoft amirite!

    3. Re:A new twist on ransomware by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, not at all. Asus BIOS code has a bug where it enables Secure Boot even if the OS doesn't support it. It didn't come to light until Microsoft fixed their bug.

      Microsoft pull a lot of shit, but this time it's not the case. The onus is on Asus to fix it, and they have.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Resistance will not be tolerated. by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    You will upgrade to windows 10 or Microsoft will begin to brick your hardware.

    This wasn't an accident.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  5. not really broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having to change a BIOS setting that was wrong to begin with is not "bricking" anything.

    Making the full-disk encryption feature work as designed IS progress. The fact that now allows an incorrect-by-default BIOS setting to be enforced is unfortunate, but since it can simply be set to the correct value, trying to equate it to forcing Windows 10 or making a computer useless is ridiculous.

  6. Not the first time they've done this by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I was in college I worked as a computer tech for a print and video publishing department of the university. They had a large number of Macintosh computers running Microsoft software. This was back in the day when Apple was making their transition to PowerPC processors.

    The version of Microsoft Word available at the time was known to be crash happy and a new version had just come out or was going to be released soon. An interesting bug in the program would delete open files if saved too often and it would prevent saving the file under a different name. If someone reached this save limit then the file was effectively lost. It remained in memory so long as the file was open but it could not be saved to disk. At best it might be able to print it.

    This was an interesting bug when it came to me and I was responsible to resolve the problem for the people working in the department. Microsoft just told people to get the next version. As this was a bug that hit an OS limitation it was possible to reduce the probability of hitting the bug by upgrading the OS. If your computer did not meet the system requirements for the next OS version, or the next Word version, the solution was buying a new computer. Every solution that Microsoft offered was going to cost money. One might place some blame on Apple for this but the problem was that Word had a memory leak, upgrading the computer or OS just meant that it was much more difficult to hit the limit before Word locked you out of saving your files and deleted what was already on the disk. When I presented the "solutions" to my supervisor I was instructed to remove Word from the affected computers, meaning the student employees had to switch around computers to get their work done.

    At around this same time Microsoft had released a new version of Office. Because of some delays in publishing Microsoft offered the old version of Office to people that bought the new version, which on some level was fortunate for me. I installed the new version of Office and tried to run Word but any attempt to open an existing file or create a new one would immediately crash the computer. Complaints to Microsoft was answered with the options of using the old version or getting a new computer that did not expose this bug. As I already had a working copy of WordPerfect I only bought Office so that I could use the latest version of Word since I was getting files that were in that format. WordPerfect was IMHO a much better program and could already open the older Word files. My only consolation was that I got Excel out of the deal which came in handy for some of my math and engineering homework. I could have used other software to get the homework done but Excel was easier at the time.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  7. Does no one know about computers? really? by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

    A bios enforcing secure boot is not "bricking" your computer. Having secure boot on or off, as they say, does not affect windows 7 at all. So the solution, is to turn off the feature that you are not using anyway.

    Sometimes bios updates change these sorts of settings or reset the UEFI or legacy settings. Its good to know enough about how a computer works to know about secure boot, the newer (not that new anymore) UEFI boot process and the hardware / operating system integration in newer OS's. The people on slashdot are the first people I would expect to be knowledgeable about this, yet 90% of the first 100 or so posts are like "brick this" and F-M$ that... when in reality, windows 7 is getting older but yet is so stable that this is the biggest problem its had in years :) That's the real take away for me.

    It's just inevitable that when running newer hardware with older OS's, some bios settings may need to be changed from their defaults. I am happy that I can boot my skylake platform with UEFI on because asrock provided a windows 7 installer patch. It may seem extreme to some, but I am happily still running windows 7. This is another example of a work around for an older OS that doesn't "just work" on new hardware. Manufacturers often assume people are running the newest OS and set options accordingly.

    I always turn secure boot off because its kind of pointless so this would not affect me or any computer I have built.

    --
    -
  8. WTF ASUS by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Ok while we're all busy bashing MS, has anyone noticed the fact that an ASUS motherboard with UEFI Secure boot set to only boot windows somehow booted an unsigned kernel which didn't support UEFI Secureboot?

    How is the real story here not that ASUS's Secureboot implementation is horribly broken and if that's the case WTF else is wrong with their BIOS?

    1. Re:WTF ASUS by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I think they are saying that Windows 7 -did- support secure boot, until one particular Windows update installed a bootloader that was not signed.

      Windows 7 was released 4 years before Secureboot was even proposed as part of the UEFI spec. Microsoft introduced Secureboot support with Windows 8 and did not backport it. If you look through manuals for various BIOS's or installation guides from Dell etc you'll see all of them mention you need to disable Secureboot in order to use Windows 7.

      I have a hard time believing that this was enemy action as opposed to a horrendously crap fuckup in the way ASUS has implemented Secureboot that allowed unsigned code to run when the BIOS was set to required Windows UEFI Secureboot signatures.

  9. There's a reason some people not even dual boot by xonen · · Score: 2

    There's a reason i quit booting windows.. And this just adds one more - as i would have been an effected user, by the looks of it.

    I have windows license. I moved the * to a virtual machine. Which i can easily copy, move, boot from whatever i'm running at that moment (although i replace desktop OS only every so often).

    I rarely use it (Windows). Primary reason to use it is because some other people use it and request me for help. I don't need or use windows at all, thank you, life is too short to waste time on that clickable crap. I keep the VM updated every so often. And i'm not even considering booting windows ever again, after it evolved a habit of randomly deleting any non-ntfs partitions, or making itself and the rest of the system unbootable, thank you.

    Windows is not an OS, it's a data destruction system. They (MS) don't give a f* about your data. It was like that 20 years ago, it was like that 10 years ago and it is now. My data more important than any narcissistic OS. And i not even started about usability issues like convenience or 'just getting things done'.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.