I use Linux and Windows (XP) and while I’m not out to encourage or bash either one I do find it ‘interesting’ that I have not needed nor am I expected to reboot Linux after updates, etc. There may have been a time when one was needed but I don’t seem to remember it. (The exception of course is major OS upgrades which is to be expected.)

I-user, it does seem strange that something like this would be done. It is especially odd since one of the benefits of any Unix derivative is fewer reboots, and most who know anything about it, know this and like the fact that workflow is not interrupted by it.

It would be logical to think that MS would work toward this ideal, but no one ever said that the designers of Windows were smart. It just happens that those who sold the product were great salesmen.

Each day there are more and more reasons for me to not open the copy of Vista I have on my shelf [I used the last 2 betas and was underwhelmed, especially so when I realized how few ‘repairs’ were made between the last beta and what was shipped]

Thanks for the comment.

Probably the administrator on that guy’s network set up a policy to force updates to be installed and force the system to reboot at a given time.

Once again, you guys blame Microsoft for “causing a problem,” when in fact it was probably some goofball setting up policies that produce undesireable behavior.

Rick

Rick, I doubt that was the case - however, that points up another presumption that the overseers at Microsoft decided - if a Vista machine is on the network, it isn’t allowed to actually connect unless the user allows it to follow policies set up. I can think of a few reasons why this is not good - I remember hearing this at the Roadshow event, someone asked if it could be defeated, and the presenter glared back and asked, ‘”Why?”

Why do you doubt that was the case? This is not something that happens to anyone else using Vista. It’s not very likely that someone at MS set out to purposely cause this to happen to this one guy’s computer. Why do you automatically assume the evil bastards at MS must’ve have purposely done this, instead of considering more likely possibilities?

Have you ever used WSUS (Windows Server Update Services)? With WSUS, it’s real easy for an administrator to say that certain updates need to be installed on certain computers by a certain date. Probably an inexperienced admin thought it would be a good idea to require certain updates for Vista to be installed by a certain date, without considering that it might inconvenience some users to force them to have to reboot like that. Or, maybe the guy in the next office was doing an article about WSUS and thought it would be a good idea to show how it can force updates to be installed without thinking that it might affect the guys who posted this article. Who knows what is going on in their environment. It just seems a lot more likely that it was a “user error” of some kind, rather than an intentional effort by MS to cause this guy to have to reboot his computer in the middle of the day.

And what is wrong with requiring all machines connected to a given network to follow the network admin’s policies? If you want to connect your machine to my network, don’t I have a right to protect my network by requiring you to follow my rules? I might not want people brining their home laptops to work and plugging them into the LAN and then doing whatever they feel like. You MS bashers are always harping on the lack of security in MS software, but then as soon as MS does something to make things more secure, you whine about how inconvenient it is. You really need to take a step back and think about what you’re saying. This is getting to be like an episode of The Simpson’s, where someone blames Homer for causing some catastrphe and the next thing you know, all the towns people are outside Homer’s front door with torches and pitchforks.

Rick

Rick, I won’t debate network etiquette, as I see some of your points.

As for the network policies - I suppose I give the person originally writing the story credit for not being a dolt. I would think that he would investigate any LOCAL cause for the problem observed, BEFORE putting his thoughts and the video into a national publication.

As for MS being a company that plays nice with others - I think we have many instances on record where that is not so. I personally know of an employee from MS (verified, and in my presence) verify the little slogan about the enmity between MS and Novell in the days of DOS - The saying was ‘The job’s not done, ’til Novell won’t run. - The idea being that with each revision of DOS, as much was done as possible to break the use of Netware with it.

Well, I don’t know anything about the guy in the article. I’m inclined to think that anyone with a title like “Executive Editor” is probably not a very technical person. But I’ll admit I could be wrong about that. He could have been a former system admin type who somehow worked his way into his current position.

I’ll also admit that there could be some kind of bug in Vista that somehow, in rare cases, causes updates to be mysteriously installed and forcing a reboot as shown in the video. However, this is clearly not something that happens all the time to everyone who uses Vista.

Look, I know MS has done plenty of things wrong. I know MS software is not perfect. I just get tired of all the sensationalism, blowing every little defect way out of proportion, blaming MS for every “user error” that comes along, etc. One guy finding one strange issue like this doesn’t really prove anything, yet it is presented as if it is absolute proof that Vista is a total pile of junk and is completely unusable and anyone would be crazy to use it.

Rick

Rick, I suppose we could write and ask. As to technical qualifications, surely he has more than rudimentary knowledge of what he is writing about. If not, I’m sure that MS would be suing.

If PC Magazine runs anything like the newspapers I’ve worked on, there are fact checkers, and people consulted before things get published - I would think this is true even today.

Vista will be usable someday- just not today. There are too many documented errors in the system - if not, no SP1 would be needed, no one would hesitate to purchase and run it - because we’d all like to have the very best.

Well considering they don’t give an exact explanation for WHY that happened, I have to believe that they really DON”T KNOW WHY it happened. I would be very interested to see if you could write them and ask them to explain why it happened and see what they say.

As I said before, it could very well be some kind of oddball bug in Vista that caused it to happen. It could be some kind of unusual situation where a certain combination of things happened, all the stars were lined up a certain way, sun spot activity was at a certain level, etc., and that somehow caused it to happen. Who knows. All I know is that this is not something that normally happens to the vast majority of people using Vista.

I am using Vista right now and having been using it for months. There are a handful of minor imperfections, but all in all, it works PERFECTLY FINE. It’s not perfect, but then what is perfect?

Pretty much all computer software above a certain level of complexity has some kind of bugs or imperfections that affect a small minority of users. Pick your favorite piece of software and then go to a forum where people discuss issues with that paritcular piece of software and what do you see? People complaining about something not working the way it should! Just because a small handful of users encounter problems doesn’t mean the software is “unusable” or has “too many documented errors.”

After all, Linux has a long list of bugs and defects and errors. If it didn’t, why would they need to come out with patches and updates and fixes for it? Still, Linux is “usable” for those who wish to use it, because the bugs and defects are, for the most part, either tolerable to live with, or they only affect a small number of users in a small number of situations, such that most people aren’t bothered by them. It’s the same way with Vista. The only difference being that people are playing up every little bug in Vista, trying to make every little flaw seem like a major issue. A prime example: pointing to one case where one person had their computer force them to install updates and reboot, and trying to make it seem like this happens to everyone who uses Vista all the time.

Rick

You’re right about imperfection. I use XP on several machines, and also have a tendency to leave at least 2 of the machines on at all times. The uptime goes into weeks at times, with the main interruption being Patch Tuesday.

I use software that doesn’t change much, and with quality hardware, and proper setup, I have no unexplainable problems. I use a UPS, I have a 550W PSU (on a system that is supposed to only need around 460), and use memory that specs faster than what the bus can run. All of these things I do so that my computing is not interrupted by BSODs or anything else.

All the fixes this year for XP really don’t affect me, as I tend to be careful where I tread, and don’t use IE.

As far as I can tell, the only problem (that affects me) in XP is the one where the explorer will crash if many (2000-3000) files are moved between drives and some of them are renamed. I can usually replicate this problem on ANY machine running XP. I will admit this is something most people will not do - but I do it, and it bothers me that this hasn’t been fixed. This has been a problem since Windows 3.1. It gets better with each incarnation, but it still is not gone - I can reproduce the behavior in Vista.

So since the 1 problem I have STILL is not fixed, and many other problems are in Vista, why switch to Vista? For me, XP works great with that 1 exception. I suspect most people feel this way.

Since I’m not an idiot, the very small change in Vista security makes no difference to me. The 4GB wall is there with Vista 32, and Vista 64 has more problems than Vista 32.

What you seem to miss is that a company should learn from its mistakes. Therefore, all that has been repaired in XP should have never shown up in Vista - this is not the case. And since I am not the only one who knows about the explorer problem with moving and renaming files - that should have been repaired in Vista from the start.

Just because you seem to dismiss the reports of problems that you do not have, does not mean the problems do not exist. Sure there are so many combinations of hardware, but - Microsoft is a huge company, and has dealt with most of the problems with XP on the same or similar hardware. The fact that so many problems show up in Vista shows either sloppy programming, with not enough attention to past problems, or a lack of caring. My vote is on the latter. MS knows that most will buy the Vista pig simply because they are told they need to. They feed the company and MS does no better next time - perhaps worse.

Otherwise, why bother?

Rick, this morning - David Berlind just wrote about the problem we have been discussing - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=733&tag=nl.e539
The answer, while complete, is somewhat less than satisfying to me - how about you?

I’ve been meaning to get back to you on this, but I’ve been so busy the past couple of weeks that I just haven’t had a chance. I hope you’re still checking in, or will get notified of my update so we can continue the discussion.

It’s good to see that they found an explanation for the mysterious “Vista rebooting” problem. As I expected, there is a reasonable explanation for what happened and it is not just some random defect in Vista, or someone at MS just arbitrarily deciding to force computers to reboot on a whim. Whether or not anyone agrees with Microsoft’s decisions, this is clearly yet another case where MS can’t win. If they force updates to install and force computers to reboot because that’s what the administrator specified, then people are going to complain about the disruption. If they had instead given users an option to skip rebooting, then someone, somewhere, would end up getting a virus because they delayed installing some critical update, and once again they would be whining about how MS made the wrong choice.

What exactly are you doing when you say you “copy and rename” files and cause Explorer to crash? I regularly copy my pictures directory to an external USB hard drive for backup purposes. That’s about 6000 files. I never have a problem doing that.

Also, please try to understand that I am not “dismissing” any Windows defects. As I see it, it is more like you are taking every little issue and blowing it out of proportion, yelling “the sky is falling” and claiming Vista is “unusable” because a handful of people are encountering these issues. I fully understand that some people may find Vista to be “unusable,” perhaps because they have hardware or software they need to use that won’t work with Vista, or because there is some particular bug in Vista that prevents them from being able to do some specific task. But that doesn’t mean that millions of people, like me, are not able to use Vista without experiencing any particular problems. This is just as true of Vista as it is true of any software. After all, the problem in Ubuntu Linux with PS2 mouse support is kind of a show-stopper for me, but I don’t go around claiming that “Linux is unusable” because of it. Lots of people are using various flavors of Linux quite happily. Just because some people encounter certain problems doesn’t mean that everyone necessarily encounters those same problems.

Also, I am not an MS salesman. I’m not telling you that you need to upgrade to Vista. Just because I like it and I find that it works perfectly fine, doesn’t mean I think you need to use it, too. If you feel it doesn’t offer anything you want, then you don’t have to use it. This is not like a religion, where I think you have to follow my religion, or else! The only point I’ve been trying to make throughout all of this is just that, for most people using Vista, it does work just fine.

Rick

Rick, happy to continue. I understand what you are saying, and in some ways you are right. I do think that forcing a reboot at a specific time is a VERY STUPID thing. How hard would it be to say to the user, ‘You must reboot to allow system updates to take affect - please do this at your earliest convenience.” Second notice after 2 hrs - “Please prepare to close all open applications as forced update will take place in 2 hrs”
That gives anyone 4 hrs to comply - plenty of notice - and no room for sniveling, as almost no one works on any project which cannot be interrupted after 4 hours for a reboot sequence.. The differences are 1) plenty of time to get ready, 2) two notices.
Just to let you know - I have just upgraded my main machine to a dual core Athlon64 with 3GB main memory and 2TB disk space, but I still haven’t opened my copy of Vista. I’m ready to run XP until there is something I NEED Vista to run, that XP will absolutely not do.

Hmmm,

You know, it is understandable that a new major release has bugs, given the variability of the hardware/software environment that Vista has to manage.

On the flip side, though, is it really doing an honest bit of business to charge the ridiculously high prices they are asking for the ridiculously bug riddled and crippled version of Vista available now, when all of us who bought it now are going to have to pony up another $100 to $200 dollars for the actual Release Candidate # 1 version that finally gets it right another year and a half from now?

It doesn’t feel right to me, and I think that many of us would jump ship in a heartbeat when a practical alternative really starts to emerge from the background buzz (Can you say OpenOffice and Linux)?.

Is a mass exodus in MS’s future?

Rodney

To the Oracle…

Re:That gives anyone 4 hrs to comply - plenty of notice - and no room for sniveling, as almost no one works on any project which cannot be interrupted after 4 hours for a reboot sequence.

WOW! I don’t remember the last time I worked on a project that didn’t have run time that spanned days. Bottom line is that a PC is supposed to be generic to many solutions, that means you can’t make any assumptions.

At least the way it is right now, the astronauts know they won’t be using Windows in any fashion for a moon shot! I could see it now… “Command, we’re just about ready to enter lunar orbit.. What the… Oh, NO! NO! Don’t reboot NOW!!!”

“Several astronauts were lost today due to an unscheduled, uncontrollable, irreversible, undesired, uncontestable reboot of the lunar orbiters computer tracking systems during a crucial mission phase…”

Rodney, DAYS? Wow. I think most people would agree that 4 hrs is plenty, as the attention span of most will not keep them on a project moe than that. Of course there are othr things that will go on longer, being unmonitored much of the time - but most all of those can be paused (with everything saved) for a reboot.

Otherwise, I’d say Unix is the answer.

The solution to this whole mess would have been an option to delay the reboot by supplying an administrator login and password. Mac and Linux do it that way.

I read and fully understood the follow-up explanation article linked in [the oracle - August 16, 2007 @ 8:31 am]. My big question would be did HE set the policies that way, or are they that way by default? Many users seem not to have experienced the problem. Is it because they created their users as administrators, or because they set their auto-update policies differently, or waht?

Part of MS’s problem with security is not that their systems can’t be secure, it’s because they shoot themselves in the foot like this. It IS safer to run as a non-administrative user, but things like this make it unreasonable for normal people to actually use their computer as a non-admin on a regular basis.

It ALSO sounds like the guy in the article and the video exaggerated the story. From reading the follow-up article it sounds like the reboot was forced when he first turned on his computer, because the update had been delayed the previous night and the computer had been shut down without installing updates. That means he was not in the middle of something, so to speak. Also there were multiple ways to prevent the behavior, they just either weren’t set right by default or he changed them without realizing the consequences. If the update had been scheduled in policy for a time when he was likely to be working, it may have been a problem. I can’t check for myself what the defaults are. I’m like a lot of people, I have a boxed copy of Vista Ultimate sitting on the shelf, unopened, because XP Pro has been working flawlessly for me since 2003.

Brian, I am not sure why the updates took place the way the article describes. I do know that with many people reporting the problem of changes in update status, it could be no fault of the user (David Berlind). I have not personally experienced this unwanted change, but there are too many reports of it to be considered anecdotal.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the following were true. 1. This release of windows will never need to be updated because there are no security flaws.
2. if any updates were required, the OS would be able to “switch the files and settings” while still running and maybe have a brief pause during that time….hmmmm….maybe put up an hourglass on the screen for that brief moment.????

I’m totally with Rick. The 2 Vista machines I have used have NEVER put me though a forced reboot, but I understand how an administrator could find that feature useful.

The problem is blogs like this one, that while many times not having credible information themselves, treat mainstream media outlets as Gods, incapable of doing wrong. It’s very likely this tech editor had no idea of the other possibilities at play here, otherwise he would have made not of them in his story. At least, any good journalist would have.