A Micro$haft update that screws up your software, never

/sarcasm

I'll stick with XP

I knew I was right not to invest in this needless OS upgrade. All my gamer friends, obsessively wanting to use DX10 insist I need to upgrade. I say 'sod it, shiny graphics aren't everything, and I'm not buying vista till at least SP2'. I learned my lesson from XP thanks very much.

And look! SP1 forcibly deactivates Zone Alarm, a product I've relied on for years now, without incident!

Do Microsoft not learn (perhaps a silly question)? Aren't the EU going to pounce all over them for anticompetitive practices? Given that almost all the products that don't work are security products it could be argued I think that M$ are taking the line that Vista comes with its own security apps so you don't need 3rd party ones. I personally have no objection to them bundling their products, it doesn't stop me getting alternative products instead (on XP i use firefox and creative player - but I don't feel hard done by that they gave me I.E. and Media player free at all), but now they're actively STOPPING you using other products you have paid for in order to secure your desktop environment.

Bill, Bill, Bill - haven't you spent enough time in the EU's business courts?

The MS article does state which versions are compatible with SP1. Almost everyone listed has an update.

Mind you, some would say that your computer won't run properly with Vista installed :)

Paris Hilton because... she probably runs OS/2.

Security products such as these will use bits of kernel API which userspace programs don't. But this gets to the core of "what constitutes an OS version change?"

At one extreme, you have Solaris, where the kernel API is guaranteed not to change during the life of a major version. There may be additional API added, but the stuff which is already there cannot be changed. So the stuff which interfaced with the S10 kernel at GA (July 2007) is guaranteed to continue to work OK.

At the other extreme, you have the Linux kernel API, where every minor version change may result in a change of API for modules which interface with it. This isn't a problem for the drivers which are bundled, but external stuff which interfaces with the kernel can break at any point. The job of distributors such as RedHat or Novell is to minimise the pain, so only where their update revision flips over do things stop working.

So the reason these 3rd party bits have stopped working is because they need the Sun model, and actually get the Linux model.

I remember XP SP2 breaking compatibility as well. And I haven't heard of any of the software, except Zone Alarm Internet Security - which I don't use.

A friend got his hands on a copy of SP1 and it seems to actually fix things that were broken before. I Would know what those are since everything I own has been upgraded to Server 2k3 for games and Slackware for work.

Again

Hahahahahhahahhahahahhah I can hahahhahhahahhahahhahahha no really hahahhahhahahha etc, etc till I pee myself

The reason it is mostly security software that is affected with updates like this is usually that security software programmers have a habit of using non-supported bits and pieces in the OS, then bitching when they're removed.

Of course, it's easier to blame MS for any problem than lazy third party code.

More FUD about Vista. If you actually look at the KB article, all bar 3 of the apps have compatible versions already available from the vendors. On top of that, I haven't even heard of most of them, so they're hardly common apps.

/I'll stick with Vista SP1 thanks. :)

AV and security products tend to be very tightly wrapped around the internals of a system. It's not surprising than an update breaks them. As the kb article makes clear, there are fixes/upgrades to these systems which work just fine with sp1.

Seriously, if they don't stop this soon I'm literally going to split my sides. Another reminder as to why I'm a linux 'fanboy'.

... I hear wordpad, calculator and paint are all you need anyway.

Zone Alarm is horrible so deactivating it will actually give you less problems and a faster system...

I don't see this to be too much of a problem, I hope they or the makers of these products get fixes out quickly - tbh Trend's products still have problems with Vista so that wasn't a surprise.

It wouldn't shock me that the real reason these products stop working is their poor programming considering so many other products now work perfectly with Vista, the security improvements alone have 'broken' lots of bad old products and thats good.

Generalizing a bit, the way these products work is by hijacking system calls (patching system call table etc.) - basically they are hacking OS (as demonstrated in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Windows-NT-2000-Native-Reference/dp/1578701996/ or http://www.amazon.co.uk/Undocumented-Windows-2000-Secrets-Programmers/dp/0201721872/ )

Microsoft never made promise that these hacks will ever work, futhermore it never documented APIs and data structures exploited by these hacks. No wonder they stopped working after an update. I'd rather have Microsoft secure the OS best they can not paying attention to products that only HAPPEN to work in some version (exploiting low-level undocumented system features) that leave some bugs unpatched.

Still, I wonder if any of these changes are made on other purpose that fixing actual bug(s) in the OS.

I remember XP SP2 having a much bigger list of incompatible software. Having looked at the Free Allegiance wiki note it looks like their problems are caused by a 3rd party module in their code which bombs out in the presence of .NET framework v3.5 (which presumably is integrated in to Vista SP1). Given the number of windows applications there are I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the first major service pack for a new OS has caused so few problems.

God I sound like a right fanboi...

This is actually more to do with the 3rd party developers not coding in line with the guidelines specified for Vista rather than with Vista itself. You can't blame MS for lazy 3rd party programmers (although I expect the linux lot will be along in a moment to do just that)

It's not unusual for security upgrades to interfere with security packages as all security modules want to be 'first in line' so that they can check over files and instruction sets. They therefore do tend to conflict. Both Tiger and Leopard had problems when they were released so I can cut MS some slack on this one.

Only chance I've ever had to use the halo Bill!

Shouldn't a major OS be sufficiently secure out-of-the-box to not require all these 3rd party security products?

...that posts containing "Micro$haft" can be automatically rejected? Seriously, people. Seriously.

"most programs will continue to work as expected after you install Windows Vista SP1."

You mean they'll be screwed? That's what I'd expect...

But arn't the beta and RC programs supposed to catch this type of thing before it goes out the the greater unwashed?

...except that a kubuntu semi-auto update a couple of days ago broke my newsreader (Pan)...

This is just like the bullshit Apple Mac vs PC adverts, pure one sided fabricated SPIN. EVERY Mac OS X Update is BUGGY (well so is OS X in general) and the updates ALWAYS KILLS Mac apps, even Apple's own! Lots of times it KILLS hardware too!

BUT, you never see the pro Mac magazines, websites or Apple HACKS in the media report this to the public, why? They'd lose their Apple advertising gravy train or the Hacks will stop getting their Apple Freebees.

So here is JUST ONE WEEKS honest reporting on the LATEST OS X Update BUGS thanks to macfixit.com, Lets hear some good denial and spin Apple FUDS -

# Mac OS X 10.5.2: Time Machine problems a'plenty

# Mac OS X 10.5.2: Time Machine broken; system utilities must be updated

# Mac OS X 10.5.2: poor performance; AirPort, device issues; more

# Mac OS X 10.5.2: Problems starting up; ACL messages in Disk Utility; more

# Mac OS X 10.5.2 troubles: AirPort Problems, device issues; more

# MacBook, MacBook Pro update 1.1 doesn't fix first-letter-missing syndrome

# Sporadic missing letters while typing: Not just MacBook Pros; watch for trackpad interference

This goes on with EVERY Mac OS X Update and those of us in Public Education IT see it and know about it all. So, you pius Mac a-hole FUDS, take your one-sided dishonest Windows bashing and boost it up where the sun don't shine - same place your head mostly resides.

If the apps that Vista SP1 turns off were risky or poorly written with potential security holes, hey so be it for the good! Notice all that weren't turned off! When it comes to OS security, the Dictionary listing under Mac OS X shows a picture of Swiss Cheese for all the UNIX and BSD holes Apple has never fixed. If it weren't that only 3 percent of the world uses OS X, you stinky Mac would be a festering hole of Viruses, Worms and Trojans.

Have a pleasant day.

Is this really such a big deal ? So SP1 breaks 3 security suites noone uses, and all 3 have updates to fix it (especially considering SP1 has yet to be released) All the other software thats broken are pretty much non-name crap anyway.

I was the first to bash Vista for the past year but SP1 has fixed all my complaints, The list of software breaks is smaller than most linux revisions (and most leopard ones)

I am all for taking a pop at M$ given the chance but this is just a non-story already covered in "I'm sticking with XP till 2012 when skynet will kill us all" posts.

Anyone remember all the "I'm sticking with 98 cause i don't need XP's eyecandy" posts 6 years ago ?

I guess all the xp lovers don't redecorate their house "cause they don't need eye candy" *YAWN* isn't there a new bandwagon for everyone to mount yet ?

This is a blatantly anti-Vista article, a few badly made programs not working after a major service pack is hardly news!

... the Vista haters/XP lovers are out in force today jumping over the article without doing their research. I seem to remember a similar ream of applications broken by SP2 in XP. In fact, in general, a *smart* PC owner would check compatibility in all their startup apps *BEFORE* installing something as big as a service pack.

So in the end, Microsoft were RIGHT to withhold the Service Pack for a month or two, to give the developers time to right their own products. Could you imagine the carnage if we all had SP1 for Vista as soon as they RTM'd it?

If you're a proficient computer user, you will know where to get it regardless anyway (and you know what you're getting yourself into so you can use your sense and prepare beforehand). Delaying it for the non-proficient user (i.e. the general public) is good management.

Dear Developer,

We're going to release a new operating system every couple of years, which will handle your memory access and peripherals differently every time. We will release a tiny tiny tiny API and of course nothing in this API will link to anything at all in the core kernel.

Device drivers will all need to be rewritten by you if you want them to work with our new product, otherwise, when they don't, you will go out of business because everyone in the world uses Microsoft products. We will offer next to no help (like procedure calls etc) for your convenience.

In conclusion, stop being so lazy and re-write your perfectly functional code that worked with our previous release, while we work on the next version so you have to do it all again. You owe us at Microsoft your thanks, becuase without us, you'd be out of a job by now.

As sincerely as we get,

Microsoft

3 security suites that noone uses? You *can't* be including Trend Micro's software in there, they do the security for Hotmail (yes, it's server based not vista based but it's still a largely similar program) and last time I checked it's one of the top 5 most widely used AVs worldwide. And I'll admit I use it myself, because it has yet to slow my laptop down anywhere near anyone else's software has, and because I can install it on all 3 of my computers with one license, but i have absolutely no loyalty to any software brand especially AVs and I wouldn't argue with you if I didn't know I was right.

I'm going anonymous because I don't want to admit I'm bringing myself down to the level of this argument.

Windows update break your computer did it?

Can't remember the last time anything I installed from Apple did that. Funny old world really!

Or, as Dr. Strangelove put it: "When you build a doomsday bomb you have to TELL people about it!"

Since MS is loathe to "open the kimono" on their internal API, it's not surprising that third-party vendors have to write through "holes" that they reverse-engineer. And, it is the third-party's responsibility to fix the problem - NOT Microsoft's - as the third party is the one exploiting the hidden API.

This all boils down to "you get what you pay for". If you want more aggressive system protection that that offered by a vendor, you take the risk of future failure. That's the trade-off, and the third party vendor AS WELL AS THEIR CUSTOMER needs to understand this. Alas, most technology users don't do their homework, or at least, are likely to complain when these issues occur.

Sun's approach is in many ways admirable; however, I'd be willing to bet that there are "undocumented" APIs in Solaris that, while not frequently employed, may still "break" with intermediate updates.

There is also some historical precedence for this kind of updating by MS. Back in the 1970's IBM had a serious problem with customers using "undocumented" features of their mainframe OS to support various business functions. Since major updates were infrequent, the use of these features could become business-critical before an update would come along and break them. IBM decided to address this in the early 1980's by doing two things: IBM increased the frequency of updates to "discourage" customers from having time to find the "holes", and it simplified the update patching procedure (which until then required assembly language programming skills from "Systems Programmers" to implement on a custom basis) to become more automated and less "open" to hacking. The result was an increase in the stability of the mainframe OS, and, after an initial screaming from customers that had to modify all their non-compliant software, better reliability and simplified maintenance of their applications.

I'm not a Microsoft "fanboy" - indeed, I'm an unrepentant Linux user - but, MS DOES own the product, and they can change it as they see fit. Customers have the options of either not upgrading (see all the XP reversions after Vista) and living with the "reduced" functionality, or dealing with the changes.

If anything has occurred since Microsoft introduced Vista, it is that MS has taught Jill Consumer to start acting like Fortune 100 data centers: don't upgrade Windows until the NEXT revision is introduced - about a year.

When vista was first designed it got rid of lot of hacks , but the the AV complained that it would not hook into the kernel. SO making the kernel more secure meant AV soft didnt work, well at least norton but thats crap any ways.

you could make vista more secure but then alot of crappy apps would break.

If I was MS is would say hey you got three years to stop crappy coding cause the next release of the OS wont let you do that.

"Microsoft never made promise that these hacks will ever work, futhermore it never documented APIs and data structures exploited by these hacks."

It would be more accurate to say, "Microsoft never made promise that these hacks will ever work, furthermore it never documented APIs and data structures."

Full stop.

Which is why Microsoft continues to get into trouble with the EU (and will do so in the US again, post-Bush) for abusing their monopoly position.

Yes, I know they've promised to do so. GWB promised to focus on the CO2 problem, too, in 2000, when he wanted votes. I'm a skeptic.

I do some web development but mostly I use my computer to surf and play video. Some document creation. I'd say 90% of my time is spent in a browser. Seeing Web 2.0 apps like Buzzword strongly suggest to me that that 90% is only going to go up. Firefox by any measure is far better that IE.

Given all that, why should I even care about Vista? I've seen in on a friend's laptop and it seems slow, overly glossy. IE 7 seems to be a marvel in ugly UI design.

So what the hell is MS doing with Vista other than trying to generate a product to sell that no one really needs?

That's what you get with the closed source model: third party devs have to "hack" to get their apps working. Now, sure stuff breaks in the free software camp too, obviously -- but then people can know why and change things if they want. I'm glad Solaris joined the pack (although I haven't used the newer, free software version one).

Sorry, I've never had a "Windows update break (my) computer", but I'll bet you've had your Mac broken repeatedly by Apple; probably in for repair at Apple right now! You Apple Trolls are all alike, NEVER can debate the stated facts with facts, only toss around anomalous dribble backed with nothing from reality, which is why everyone knows that Apple Kool Aid Drinkers live in a the Fantasy-land of Denial.

Debate the stated facts ... or just shut up. It's not surprising that recent surveys showed that Mac users are huge liberals, that's how their campaigns go too. Right, like the Obama's, Clinton's and Gore's? Empty platitudes and no substance.

To webster freaky

MAC OSX is 8% world marketshare actually but don't let that get in the way of a good story huh ?

Never had a single problem with Leopard or 10.5.2

Guess you lament the days when Microsoft were 97% and on the verge of total dominance...perhaps you'd like a communist state as well?

To whom are you referring to? I do not see anyone mentioning OS X here. There was a Linux comment. Clam down, take Hatha yoga.

BTW, as an IT support staffer for a school district I much prefer our staff to use the simpler and friendlier OS X though I personally enjoy tinkering with Windows.

Dear Linux Users and Developers

We're going to release a new operating system every 6 months, which will handle your memory access and peripherals differently every time. The changes we make will require developers to update w x y and z. For users the changes will stop a b c d e and f from working until the developers or amateur coders release new versions of x y and z. Once these updates are available, they will of course be downloadable from our repository, assuming you have a broadband connection capable of downloading a few hundred megabytes of updates in a reasonable time frame. After that everything will be fine until 6 months later when you will have to go through the whole procedure again. You are of course used to this as every program you install already informs you that in order to run it requires x y and z, followed by prompts from x y and z that they require you to install l m and o before they will run. Please don't expect us to help you in anyway should you choose to install something that is not in our repository. We are sure you can eventually find someone in the community who will not flame you for not instantly knowing the solution and give you an easy to understand answer to your problem. Should you require a feature that we don't currently provide, it will be in the next version or possibly the one after that. Of course, to gain these features you will have to replace your OS again. Unless we decide we can't be bothered anymore, in which case we are sure that somebody in the community will bother to add to and repair the code that we can no longer be bothered with.

Yours Sincerely

Whateverlinuxflavourisfavouritethismonth

I am not touching Vista until XP becomes less usefull. In the old days of 98 and ME (cough) there was plenty of reasons to upgrade to XP (Actually Windows 2000 then XP but that's a different story).

All that Vista has is some new bells and whistles. Some of them a hinderance. DX10 is of no interest to me. Plus nearly all hardware and software (New and legacy) works on XP. Vista may not support all your old hardware and software.

I'll take a mature version of XP over Vista anyday.

just ONE OS that doesn't suck? Personally, I can't think of any, myself. With the exception of maybe my old TI pocket calculator, I can't think of any OS, written for any system, that doesn't have a problem or deficiency somewhere or at some level, when the computer is turned on.

After looking at one of the more thorough vulnerability documentation sites, there isn't any major OS and damn few commercial applications that aren't listed on that site for some reason or another.

<anti-MS rant> Honestly, is anybody really surprised? I mean seriously? And based on the overwhelming rejection of Vista, I'm going to use XP until my Windows machine, until they die... I'm not a gamer, so I'm not vulnerable to OS blackmail, there. And most of the apps I use, save one, are all open source. So F-U to Microsoft on that issue. </anti-MS rant>

As for my work machines, I'll stick with the versions of *nix I installed on them at the time of putting them into operation, and since I'm somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to apps/toys on those boxes, then I should be fine for a good long time (providing I patch when necessary).

As for the crack about Paris and her OS of choice... I figured she was more of a Network Engineer and was somewhat of a routing queen... Think I read one of her articles on routergods.com

"Can't remember the last time anything I installed from Apple did that. Funny old world really!" err? is this the first time you've worshiped at the church of st jobbie for a few years? (fekin god squadders) Still think there are no security issues? have you got a fixed IP ad..? would you like to post it? (god the good old days with 95 and eary 98) how much will your ipone cost this year? build a high speed mac for a few hundred squid? I think all cults should be banned, they take all your cash, make you delusional and try and convert/preach to the innocent

errr .. forget the title ..

Still .. to really get on a par we will need software companies to

put on their trousers and start selling linux/mac versiions of their

software that are only available at the moment on windows.

As long as the applications are not available for Linux/Mac

for ex .. AutoCad .. you know .. the big appilcations , we can keep

chanting the Linux song .. but in practice we will always need

windows cause we got no choice but to use it ..

It's going to take more than good will ..

Once we got the apps .. then there's a chance noone will have to suffer

the kind of torture Vista is making users endure anymore ..

Have a good weekend .. time for a pint ..

If Vista SP1 is supposed to break Trend Micro Internet Security, somebody better tell my computer because I have BOTH those products and both worked from day 1. Vista SP1 did not disable or mess up my Trend Micro program.

M$ seem to have entirely lost the plot with Vista which was broken from day one.

IT? What IT? There's none to be seen here. Move along please.

Got a notice to update Zonealarm a few weeks ago. Did it well in advance of SP1 becoming available. Vista still works, Zonealarm works. Considering the size of the update, it is remarkable how short the list is and how narrow in scope. I hope to see a similar article for the next OSX service pack to show how the reg isn't biased against MS.

Big fuss / nothing

N.B. Vista is still crap and bloated compared to XP.

It is also perfectlyreasonable to either tell AV companies who make your OS fit for at least temporary residency on the internet how to get their products working with their OS (since they are the only ones who can possibly know).

It would be perfectly reasonable that a change to kernel structures or API calls that are used by these AV products be tested so that they still work.

It would be perfectly reasonable that MS test and give gold code to AV companies so that they can roll out fixes BEFORE you send out the changes.

But hiding everything to people who are now competitors (because you bought an AV company), changing them so that only YOUR AV product works and keeping these competitors in the dark is NOT perfectly reasonable.

"Oops !...we did it again

I patched your PC, broke some things on the way

Oh baby, baby

Oops, you think you're secure

That I sent you a cure

But I'm not that competent."

[Excised by Reg moderator.]

It is perfectly reasonable that Microsoft put out this KB article notifying everyone that Vista SP1 will break these specific applications one month before the service pack's official release...

its perfectly reasonable that Microsoft released the service pack to manufacturers early this month, to give them time to fix their products to work with the service pack.

its perfectly reasonable for software vendors to get the RTM service pack and test their products against it, and produce patches and or updates to their products to be compatible with said service pack, as most listed in the KB article have.

[Excised...]

Now for a time line of events and a little reality check for you sir...

4 Feb 2008 Microsoft releases Vista SP1 to manufactures for testing and development

Some time between 4 Feb 2008 and 22 Feb 2008 - Software vendors produce patches for their products to correct incompatibility issues with SP1.

22 Feb 2008 Microsoft puts out KB article regarding applications that are blocked by SP1

On or about 15 March 2008 Microsoft will release Vista SP1 to the world...

Explain to me sir what exactly Microsoft did wrong on this one?

As stated above , the first time and likely the last i'll ever user Bill with a Halo...

Let's see - bought my first Mac back in 1991, been using them ever since.

Number of hardware failures = none.

Number of times computers returned to dealer for repair = none.

Number of virus infections = none.

Number of spyware infections = none.

Number of adware infections = none.

Amount of AV software installed = none.

Number of support calls to Apple = none.

Reasons to use Windows = none.

Reasons to mock Webster = many.

KB937287 caused BSOD on every box that it was updated on.

Sometimes I wonder if M$ checks anything before they release it.

"Anyone remember all the "I'm sticking with 98 cause i don't need XP's eyecandy" posts 6 years ago ?"

running Win98SE fine on this machine thank you, same stable install for 6 years, PIII 667 ... and it plays and burns DVDs just fine

no one's much writing malware for it anymore either

finally got a WinXP SP2 machine for some newer games and apps no longer written for Win9x, about a year ago ..

'classic' mode, still don't need the desktop eyecandy slowing things down

so while I have to admit I'll be dropping regular use of this PIII Win98SE sys soon, it will go up on the shelf with my 200MMX Win95 osr2 sys that I boot up about every 6 months to show off that Win95 is stable too

Vista ? .. maybe never, Linux might be ready for prime time in a couple of years

As soon as my games work with Linux, I'll be installing it. Until then, XP works fine.

Re : classic mode - I used it originally but when I switched to Fisher Price mode, I quickly got used to it and have not noticed any impact on performance.

Microsoft's problem with selling Vista is that they've already built something (XP-SP2) which most people find sufficient for their needs. I'm sure Vista is perfectly okay, but why would anybody want to pay through the nose (twice as much in the UK as in the US) for something which offers very little extra compared to what they already have?

It ain't broke, so I ain't fixin' it.

OK I run XP/Vista/Ubuntu/PClinuxOS/Slackware and OSx and out of all of them the worst OS for me is Vista which I might start calling Windows ME 2nd edition.

First time I've had a problem with OSx and it's caused by a drive failure however I've taken the opportunity to upgrade to 10.5. Bearing in mind this is a 2Ghz PPC Imac it's running sweet however one wonders how slow an equivalent Vista system would be. As for Aero / Aqua the later still looks better come to think of it Linux has looked better than Vista for a year or two now with it's 3D gui.

However I would like to thank MS as their whole attitude to OS design is keeping me in business. You see I am in IT support and thanks to there building of popular bloatware I get regular support work and PC upgrades.

So thanks MS for helping me pay my bills!

Actually Windows 2000.

That was the last MS OS where I really could see the point of upgrading. As a developer, I appreciated the fact that when I got something wrong, W2K simply contained my mess in a nice little sandbox and I didn't have to reboot my whole machine. It also had reasonable (for its time) security, so that Russian cybergangs couldn't easily rifle through my drawers. It had a nice simple UI. And it didn't have that annoying activation crap either.

Since then, what have they done to it? The Teletubbies interface of XP? Wow, awesome. OK so they added a new DX programming API for games too, but that could have been bolted on to W2K if they'd wanted to. Intrusive activation? That's for MS' benefit, not mine.

Then there's Vista. It looks nice and all, but what's the point of it? There's another game graphics API, but did we need a whole new OS for that? There's a visual effect called Aero, which looks to me like a little bit of transparency slapped on your desktop, but apparently needs a £500 graphics card to make it work nicely. There's also some enhanced security, which looks to me like Unix "sudo" on steroids.

Sorry, but Microsoft is like a lottery winner who insists on still showing up for work, but its heart is not really in it any more. It ends up just annoying people.

And I got through that post without *any* Marmite getting on my fingers.

I think it is quite likely that one of two things has happened here;

1. You have never turned it on.

2. You are a lying....

Not wanting to be offensive, it just that there is no way that all those things can be true with a machine in regular use.

I didn't see Mac mentioned anywhere in the article either... And I'm not going to get involved correcting the projectile-vomited bile by the aptly named "Webster Phreaky"....

Oh all right, I will.

Yes, 8% market share and rising actually. And I've never had a problem with updating any Mac OS since 1988. Oh. And that's over several hundred Macs. There are no viruses, malware or adware for OS X. Yes there have been some hardware issues occasionally, exactly the same as it has been for any other computer manufacturer, although reports suggest that Apple Macs are more reliable than most.

I'll leave it to the comment by my mate who, having been a staunch Windows user for years, switched to a Mac and said "Bloody hell! Is it always this easy on a Mac?"

Feel the love.

Considering how big an update vista sp1 is I don't think this compatibility list is a big deal. Probably not much MS could do about it. I am sure its easier to modify the affected apps then to try to modify the SP.

Has anyone here played with the update? Does it speed things up any in vista? The irony of vista is many people; myself included do many tweaks to bring it closer to XP in performance. Out of the box Vista is lame and many of its new features are disabled by many users since they bloat things down too much. Already I have disabled UAC, indexing, defender, modified shutdown timer, and a ton of other junk vista installs. I finally decided to leave superfetch enabled. But the disc thrashing on boot up is still annoying. Overall, I think Vista missed the mark since MS plain and simple over coded it and its not lean code. You pretty much have to use sleep to shut down or face long boot times. I can't seem to get my system to fully boot in under 2 minutes which is not reasonable. Before tweaking it was over 3 minutes which is pathetic. And with sleep, it uses more battery power then what MS will probably admit to.

I am hoping for a miracle with SP1 but I don't expect much and most people who have upgraded say it does not change much. I think MS needs another total rewrite to fix the bloat on Vista.

>Vista ? .. maybe never, Linux might be ready for prime time in a couple of years

Based on what I've seen over the last 4 months of trying various distributions I'd say the timeframe is more like 6-8 months when KDE 4.1 comes out.

Vista only exists because M$ needed to come out with a new OS to justify it holding the reins of its monopoly. Unfortunately Vista just proves it isn't worthy of holding that position. Malevolence with competence ok, malevolence with incompetence? I think not.

you could get a real o/s like openSUSE.

I'd played around with various distros of linux before, but once I got involved with vista testing it delivered the necessary boot in the rear end to motivate my migration to something else.

I do not regret it.

Totally agree with you up until a point.

"All that Vista has is some new bells and whistles." - Not quite true, it has some very good features (and some moronically bad ones as well!!!)

some of the features (like DX10) are unnecessary at the moment and others like the UAC is just annoying!! however, the windows firewall has been revamped to do the one job that i would've used Zone alarm for in the first place, it's now able to block OUTGOING traffic as well.

"Vista may not support all your old hardware and software." - True again, however this is more the manufacturer's fault then MS. Case to point, I had a creative webcam, and had the RC2 of Vista. Driver not available from creative's website but windows update installed the driver. When Vista was released, the driver could not be found anywhere including Windows update and Creative have denied knowledge of the driver EVER existing!

"I'll take a mature version of XP over Vista anyday." - I challenge you to use XP 64 for 6 months and NOT to beg for Vista 64. I have used both and i can say without any doubt the improvements of Vista 64 over XP 64 are greater then the negatives of Vista 32 compare to XP 32.

I've said it many times before, if you are not going to to use 64 bit computing, stick with XP 32. Vista 32 IS slower and more bloated and is, quite frankly, pointless. However, if you're going to build a new pc, or even upgrade to 64 bit capable computers, put Vista 64 on and force yourself to use it for a month. Once you get used to what MS have renamed everything (WHY DO THEY INSIST ON DOING THAT?????) you'll have no problems with it.

To all Linux and Mac users, they are not my preference for a computer but that is not to say that I think theey are crap, if your computer does everything you want of it and you are happy and competent using it then good luck to you. can we not have the usual flame wars for once though, this is a MS article, lets stick to discussing MS (and ways that we would hurt Bill if we had the chance!!!)

...that all the packages seem to be security related, the one thing that windows really really really is in need of?!

I'm starting to wonder if Bill G is running an email botnet in his new extended spare time!

As someone using the unofficial release of S.P.1 on Vista x64 Ultimate, I have had no issues while using BitDefender Internet Secuirty 2008.

Microshaft talking bollocks again!

Could this article have maybe not mentioned a few facts to get people riled up?

Well I guess you have to sell stories somehow.

Tux because I enjoy it when yum breaks my computer and I get to fix it.

@ More MS FUD.

If Microsoft actually did what they keep claiming they'll do and open their code to third party vendors, then those "lazy vendors" would be able to bring their products into line more quickly and more effectively and prevent Redmond from fucking everything up.

Twat.

I have a PPC mac mini, it is still going, never crashed, no calls needed to anyone, used to be a dos/windows user, never again. The only time that its ever done any thing strange is when I've made it do it.

The are heaps of programs for the Mac, alternatives for Auto-Cad too. If you only live in a windows world , you'll never see them. Get a MacBookPro or Mac Pro, run what ever operating system you like on it. The computer is only a tool, use any program you want regardless of operating system, pick the best program you can find for, Linux, OSX or Windows.

I guess webster has not had his medication today? (I bet he'd love to use a Mac, but his pride has gone so far, he would be mocked by his friends, if he has any?)

Um, out of all those apps 3 of them don't have an update or patch to resolve the issue.

Why has this issue been caused? As people have been coding using non-documented methods. You code for Linux? You write for it. You code for OS X? You write for it. You code for Windows? You write for it.

If crap developers want to ignore MSDN (free reference rather than the subscription one) for the past 10 years where the documented coding references have been then it's their problem.

And for the love of God please STFU about Vista already! Honestly, from someone who actually quite enjoys MS's technology - I wouldn't recommend people shell out new hardware to run it. It's not worth it.

But if you get it on a new system then it's a fine OS. XP with better security, better management and a much more grown-up UI. Other than that there is nothing 'special' to make me want to go out and get it, but for a £99 upgrade I think the security changes alone are worthy of the cost.

Would I spend £10,000 upgrading 1000 PC's to run it in an enterprise? Would I fuck. Would I spend the time and resource to upgrade them if the hardware is capable (which every PC in the last 5 years is) and I have software assurance on my Open or Select agreement? Yes I would.

There's far more benefits of ugprading compared to the negatives (which now are pretty much non-existant). Only time this isn't true is if you need to ugprade your hardware - just wait for the next hardware cycle (3 years) and run the latest Windows then.

<<It was forced to suspend distribution of its servicing stack KB937287 update after customers complained that their PCs wouldn't boot up properly once it had been applied.>>

How did they manage to actually complain to microsoft? do they have some special phone number the rest of us don't?

> there is no way that all those things can be true with a machine in regular use.

Meh - in *your* experience, maybe. However in my experience over 10 years of running machines 24/7 (and apart from a couple of unrelated HDD & PSU 'infant mortality' failures) I'd have to fully agree with AC of "The bitter truth of being a Mac user" - and although I'm not using Windows /or/ a Mac, the primary benefit lies in the choice of OS. Some of them simply don't behave very well, you know...

Number of times I chose the hardware to run on: many

Number of times I chose the OS I wanted to run on it: many

Number of times I didn't pay too much for a half-eaten fruit logo: just as many

Number of times I had to listen to "but it's much better in graphics" drivel: too many

No, I'm not an MS fanboy, and not a Linux fanboy per-se, I run both actually, MS mostly because buisiness requires me to use Outlook (*sigh*). Once somebody in Linuxland solves that, yes, I might step away from MS altogether. Not because I hate MS, just because I like free stuff... that works too.

And please, quit the "you need sys-admin knowledge to install Linux, and command prompt to do any kind of configuration" rethoric. I have "converted" a couple of friend's laptops to Ubuntu (from Vista) and my PC support time for said friends have dropped to virtually 0 hours, and none of them have complained (after I guaranteed them I would roll them back to XP -not Vista- if they would so desire, at my cost).

Oh, yes, I know a bunch of people with Macs too. Great if you want "a great looking machine", "cool, crisp screen", etc., but there's no compelling reason for me to empty my wallet for one of these.

/rant

Just another problem with an update really. Its more amazing that they managed to stop only a few programs working. If i were a vista user (im NOT) id be happier to have an OS update than a problem with my anti-virus software. But then im not the average user i suppose. All of the commentees here obviously have the nouse to be able to avoid virus/malware etc issues, while the avg. user probably goes about their business surfing porn etc etc... and besides its more likely that users break their own machines more often the MS manages.

There have been plenty of problems with Apple stuff over the years, we're not immune to it, and most of them have been to do with drivers and hardware, the last update for 10.5.2 was a keyboard fix. So there... The difference is with Apple that problems get fixed ASAP and for free without stopping anything else functioning (Mostly - i.e the last quicktime update stopped the functioning of Adobe video editing products due to an anti-piracy measure)

As for reliability? Ran the same classroom for 6 years using 700mhz and 1ghz eMacs and the only problem ive ever had is with RAM and 1fooked harddrive. Made by Samsung. Im no fanboy (the current macbook appears to be made from cardboard) but when it comes to reliability the Apple products are hard to beat, longevity? you bet...

Heart? Feel the love...

Kind of predictable really. Microsoft creates O/S that is buggy and insecure, then doesn't publish reasonable APIs for how to work with said O/S. So people fixing problems with the O/S have to reverse engineer "hidden" APIs. Which Microsoft then goes and changes, then blames the 3rd party writers for not following the APIs... which aren't published.

If it were up to Microsoft, there would be NO 3rd party "security software" for Vista, because they want you to use their crap. THAT is the real goal here.

Would someone call me when we ever get a real , secure, properly written operating system that is actually usable by novice users? Because right now there is no such beast. We're stuck with:

(a) an insecure piece of crap from Microsoft with a so-so interface, whose only defence is that it's "popular". Note, however, that McDonald's is also popular, yet I still wouldn't call it food. I wouldn't wish this O/S on my enemy. Nobody deserves this shit.

(b) a slightly more secure but still flawed piece of less smelly crap from Apple, with a very well designed interface but a growing attitude of "we own your machine". Screw them. Still, at least these systems are relatively well designed and built and don't crash too often.

(c) Linux, written by geeks, for geeks, and heaven help anyone who isn't a geek who wants to actually use it for something. No, I don't want to explain to my mother how to edit /etc/something/something_else to add a line to change some behaviour. Great server, lousy desktop for novices.

(d) BSD (Free/Open/Net), secure as a Unix lookalike can get, with same interface problems that Linux suffers from.

(e) the operating system I would recommend wholeheartedly... which unfortunately doesn't seem to exist yet. So I'm left choosing from a slate of less than desirable alternatives.

If you have a brain and leave off the porn

--- Bill because he's better than you!

What probably differentiates the average 'nix user ( excluding the average mac user ) from the windoze user is that the 'nix user likely builds their system up on their own.

If they mess it up they have no one else really to blame but themselves. Which means by and large, they take great care in what they do. If they don't... well...

If you go microsoft however, you're pretty much stuck with whatever M$ hands you. Much like Apple.

I like Apple because they have arguably a better OS than M$ but let's face it. Leopard sucks. It could be way better but it sucks. You'd think they'd have gotten it right by now instead it's a step backward from tiger. sigh.

I dislike Apple because of the fanboys and the stupid shit it comes up with once in a while, like leopard. Or laptops with non-replaceable batteries. Or with dud optical drives. Or heating problems. Or OS's tied to Apple branded hardware.

To those of you who REALLY like apple hardware consider this. The laptops are nice but when it comes to anything other than... I can build a machine far cheaper AND better than the best apple you can supply me and STILL get OSX to run on it if I wanted to. And because I built it, I know what went in it, where it went etc. It will run cooler. It will run better. And if it breaks, I can fix it.

Apples do malfunction. believe me they do. I have had the experience. And if you're not planning on fixing it yourself... be prepared to pay...

I beg MS to keep Vista as crappy as it is now, because I'm making a living just removing vista and installing XP on customer's laptops.

"If I was MS is would say hey you got three years to stop crappy coding cause the next release of the OS wont let you do that."

Which is exactly what they did! XP-64 broke "compatibility" with the kernel hooks that many AV products (and rootkits) relied upon. But it wasn't generally noticed because XP-64 was an OEM only product and not widely circulated. Only shortly before Vista's release did the AV vendors wake up and realise what was going on. Three year's notice? They probably had at least four, and they still bitched about it!

AV vendors represent the unwashed armpits of the software industry. I'm convinced they have caused more problems than they have solved. Their products either directly cause crashes and instability, or they instill their users with a false sense of security (aka the "I can click anywhere I want, because I've installed an AV product"-syndrome).

Finally.. Using products like ZoneAlarm is putting the wagon in front of the horse. Isn't it better to avoid installing malicious code in your system, rather than put up a flimsy application firewall? Most users have no use for such products. They will not understand anything at all (and does not want to be asked questions). I am glad MS broke compatibility for them temporarily. They should do that more often.

@Mike Kamermans

They probably used a working PC.

-----------------------

I was hesitant to "go Vista" at first, but needing to install 4+ GB RAM on my new computer so I had to choose between a not very popular (percent-wise) XP64 or the new untried but very much "pushed" Vista x64. I picked the newer OS to go with the new hardware. Sure it does consume more resources, but I find it is better laid out and very stable (with the proper drivers). It does come with eye-candy and I've disabled some of the time-consuming ones (the fades etc) but I do like the aero interface.

I had never heard anybody complain an OS looking good, until Vista. I am happy with it, it does what it's supposed to do - run my software, keep my data. I trust it as much as any other, meaning I keep my backups and my anti-malware stuff up-to-date. It has a very good selection of software (free and otherwise) which is parallel to none in current existence. User interface improvements are a bonus, and I am not only talking about the blurry glass. It works better than XP did.

In a perfect world I certainly would prefer working in BeOS, which sadly is no more. Amiga was lovely, Irix was very very fine, BeOS was nearly perfect. Alas they are all history and not relevant anymore.

I've used OSX in its many incarnations and I like (and dig) it -having a proper Unix shell along with a good GUI is a Good Thing in my book-, the general design is hard to fault, even if a little bit too busy at times. UI approach is somewhat more elegant than Windows, but it also is -in search of a better word- too "hiding" of the underlying mechanics. Windows is a bit tweak-friendly which is nice considering it needs some tweaking.

Getting back to topic:

To compare: Apple has a monopoly on the hardware. Which is good considering they can actually test for all the variations, and is generally of higher quality (less unpredictability). It should also make their (Apple engineers') job a lot easier. This also means when Apple has a hardware/software issue it should be a lot harder to forgive.

Only, due to massive goodwill, it isn't.

MS is in this for the money in the end, and nobody has any illusions otherwise. But so is Apple Inc.

I am willing to forgive Linux for anything, for the developers are in it for fame and the "fxck you". If it ran the main Adobe stuff and a few other software, I'd switch in a hearbeat. There is always Wine and virtual machines for the tidbits.

The "fanboi"s however are not much worthy of too much respect in my book. Not Linux, and certainly not Apple (MS fans already suspect they are pathetic so I rest my case). Fanaticism equals not being able to think.

All the current main consumer OS'es would not exist if one was definably better than the others in all respects. They each have their relative strengths, and vice versa.

Vista SP1 breaking a few s/w may be worth mentioning in the passing, but I do not deem it worth the fanfare.

Let's all move along, shall we?

The words "a supported version is now available" do appear more often on the KB article than the original item would lead one to assume.

XP is looking every more sparkly this morning!

I bought a Mac Book Pro as a replacement for my Dell Latitude in Nov 2005, it is a Duo Core 2 Intel Mac, I have MS Windows XP installed in Parallels and Linux there too. I put Windows on because I needed it for work, in particular to get it to talk to a Colour Printer, I have a Mac driver for it now, and the only times I have fired up Parallels in the last 12 months are to demo 'hey look it runs Windows in a window' to anyone who asks me what I think about Macs.

I have until recently had no problems with my Mac Book Pro, the only problem I am having at the moment is occasionally C,V,B,N, M and <space> keys don't seem to work on the first press (well more that I finish typing and look at what I have typed and find that those keys are missing occasionally - occasionally being once or twice an hour).

My Mac Book Pro has only been powered down for around 24 hours since I got it, and that was when it was out of battery power and I had forgotten to take a charger with me.

Cost, all in all it cost Au$200 more than the equivalent Dell Latitude replacement I was looking at, and I consider it money well spent.

My old Latitude used to have Slackware Linux as the OS of choice, dual bootable to Windows for any @Work operations. The images for both are in the Parallels config mentioned above, both still work, neither gets used.

With reference to your comment about the Sys Admin for Linux stuff, you don't need to be a sys admin to install Linux, there are some 3 question installs out there that work really well (Corel Linux <spit> was the first). The problem is with the way that with both Linux, and Windows the 'Easy Interface' makes use of the Administrator (root), and the clueless use these all the time because it's easy. Mac have got it nice, everyone is a user; if you have admin privs assigned to you, you have the GUI sudo interface pop up to increase privs for that operation (all automatic). Better still, there is the nice little padlock which seems to require sudo privs to unlock in addition to what ever it is you're updating, double layered security, admittedly same password, but it stops automation in it's tracks. got my Mum to checkout my Mac, and from someone who has a hard time with Windows, she found it no more difficult with the Mac and in some cases she found it easier to understand.

Regards,

Mat

You forgot one:

Number of times I've had sex (with someone other than myself) = None

"Mac have got it nice, everyone is a user; if you have admin privs assigned to you, you have the GUI sudo interface pop up to increase privs for that operation (all automatic). Better still, there is the nice little padlock which seems to require sudo privs to unlock in addition to what ever it is you're updating, double layered security, admittedly same password, but it stops automation in it's tracks."

Exactly what the much maligned Vista UAC feature does. One of the bizarrer aspects of the "Vista is shite" meme which seems to be spreading unquestioned through communities like this is the way in which when Microsoft finally Does The Right Thing Which Linux And Apple Were Already Doing, it gets labelled as "annoying" and more "how to turn UAC off" articles spring up than you could shake a stick at. Clearly the attachment some people have for XP extends to wanting to make Vista as insecure as XP was.

Paris, because she'd not turn UAC off, even if it was simply because she wouldn't know how.

Someone said that the software broke because of .NET 3.5. So this SP1 includes it by default?

So they took bloatware vista and filled it with bloatware .NET upgrades. That addon alone increase boot up time for anything that uses it.

Apart from that I expected an SP to break some software, I just would have thought M$ wanting to make sure Vista worked because everyone knows its a turkey would have made 100% sure it worked, not withdrawing a KB and then breaking so much.

I'll stick to dual booting and hope Vienna comes out soon.

Aren't there more people running Ubuntu now than Vista anyway? If so who cares about Vista SP1?

several pieces of software thay bypass the API and hook directly into the kernal, stop working when there is a security update to the kernal released. Thats what API's are there for!! Microsoft can change the kernal as much as they want, but as long as all the interfaces stay the same, everything still works.

That's exactly the same as XP service pack 2, a massive security hole in the stack was plugged, and all the programs that had exploited it, to squeeze a little extra performance, stopped working.

As mentioned repeatedly in the comments, the only selling point for Vista is DX10 for gamers. It took me some time and a lot of money, but eventually I realized that next-gen console are a much better value than PC for gaming. Right now, to be able to play Crysis at a decent framerate you'll need a graphic card which, by itself, will cost you more than a PS3 and of course, next year, it will already look ridicule compared to newer models.

"As mentioned repeatedly in the comments, the only selling point for Vista is DX10 for gamers. It took me some time and a lot of money, but eventually I realized that next-gen console are a much better value than PC for gaming. Right now, to be able to play Crysis at a decent framerate you'll need a graphic card which, by itself, will cost you more than a PS3 and of course, next year, it will already look ridicule compared to newer models."

Two words: 'Keyboard' and 'Mouse'.

Not enough? Then have another: 'Mods'.

Paris, because even she thinks that playing first person shooters with gamepads is for gimps.

Microsoft Windows Vista is an awesome piece of software. Why I have it on my new laptop. It is the best Hardware Test Suite I have every used. I use it regularly to stress test my lappy. And I swear I hear a sigh from my lappy when ever I boot back in to Kubuntu.:)

Mines the Ocelot fur lined trench coat with the Vista Refund application in the pocket ;).

Dear Linux Users and Developers,

We regret to inform you that a troll has recently addressed a letter to you on our behalf.

The truth of the matter is that while we do make upgrades every six months, our software for that particular update is already ready for circulation. This is due to the vast amounts of programmers who devote their free time to the collaborative improvement of our products.

While some products may require dependencies to be met, our package manager will automatically detect, download and install these for you, in addition to downloading and installing the program itself for you with a single command. (Something you simply cannot do via the competition.) The only time you will ever have to download hundreds of megabytes is when you go through the actual upgrade. If your internet connection is insufficient, feel free to burn a LiveCD via a computer that does have a sufficient internet connection. If one is not available to you, feel free to order a free LiveCD from our website.

If you feel content with your current OS version (especially if it is an LTS release), you may keep this version as long as you want.

No upgrade will ever be delivered to you without your sayso. (We can't exactly say that of the competition, now can we?)

Signed, yourfavoritelinuxdistro.