Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Denies Windows 7 "Showstopper Bug"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the show-must-go-on dept.

Bug 241

Barence writes "Windows chief Steven Sinofsky has taken the unusual step of responding in the comments of a blog posting that claimed Windows 7 was suffering from a potential 'showstopper bug'. Stories had been sweeping the Internet that using the chkdsk.exe utility on a second hard disk would lead to a massive memory leak bringing the operating system to its knees in seconds. Responding to a blog post titled 'Critical Bug in Windows 7 RTM,' Sinofsky wrote: 'While we appreciate the drama of "critical bug" and then the pickup of "showstopper" that I've seen, we might take a step back and realize that this might not have that defcon level.' He signs off with the words: 'deep breath.'"

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RAM optimization (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986529)

I wonder how this obviously one-sided summary even got posted -- it just sounds like a calling for bashing from people who dont read the article. Here's another snippet from Steven's response:

We had one beta report on the memory usage, but that was resolved by design since we actually did design it to use more memory. But the design was to use more memory on purpose to speed things up, but never unbounded â" we requset the available memory and operate within that leaving at least 50M of physical memory. Our assumption was that using /r means your disk is such that you would prefer to get the repair done and over with rather than keep working.

And it does make sense for two reasons:
1) Windows has to lock the drive anyways, so its better to get it done fast.
2) You CAN spend RAM. If the whole RAM isn't used, you're just wasting it. In this case chkdsk.exe will use dynamically what there is left, making the process faster. How is this a bad thing?

Rather than a bug or memory leak, this seems like an optimization.

Re:RAM optimization (4, Informative)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986567)

Optimizations aren't supposed to crash the computer [bluescreenofdeath.org] .

The original report I read was full of drama, too much IMHO, and the bug could be fixed in the first service update.

Re:RAM optimization (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986649)

According to your link, the bug is already fixed. Apparently an incompatibility with chip set drivers for which new drivers are available that remove the possibility of the crash.

Re:RAM optimization (5, Informative)

sycotic (26352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986659)

Have a read of this: http://www.bluescreenofdeath.org/?p=94#comment-134 [bluescreenofdeath.org]

 

UPDATE:
After emailing back and forth with the VP Sinofsky, it was found that the chkdsk /r tool is not at fault here. It was simply a chipset controller issue. Please update you chipset drivers to the current driver from your motherboard manufacturer. I did mine, and this fixed the issue. Yes it still uses alot of physical memory, because your checking for physical damage, and errors on the Harddrive your testing. Iâ(TM)m currently completed the chkdsk scan with no BSODâ(TM)s or computer sluggishness. Feel free to do this and try it for yourselves. Again, there is no Bug.
Thanks all.

Re:RAM optimization (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987045)

Excerpt from parent should be added as an update to the summary.

Re:RAM optimization (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987485)

The issue with updates to drivers for Vista became a big issue (and assuming Vista 7 is newer) I would suspect there will be many issues with finding updates to those chipsets.

Re:RAM optimization (-1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987773)

FTFA (the very next comment):

According to my MS Source, I was told that this is by design in Windows 7 because the OS is capable and uses more memory. According to my source, because they intended to speed up chkdsk , they did so through using more memory. However, it could be a bug somewhere in OS or a driver bug but seeing as it happens across a wide range of setups, it doesn't seem to be 3rd party related.

This has been submitted to the filesystem team though for more

(emphasis mine)
So the statement "there is no bug" is blatantly false.

Re:RAM optimization (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987879)

So the statement "there is no bug" is blatantly false.

The GP you are responding to never claimed there was no bug at all. What is being said is that the bug is in the chipset controller driver or somewhere else, not in chkdsk like this FUD submission is trying to claim. Maybe next time you should learn some reading comprehension.

Re:RAM optimization (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987179)

Ya, and the only thing we see on that blog is a screenshot of how much memory chkdsk is using. Then he claims it crashes..

Sorry if I don't just blindly believe everything on the internet.

Re:RAM optimization (5, Insightful)

GreenEnvy22 (1046790) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986577)

Agreed, this is a non issue, or at worst, a very tiny issue. For the very tiny amount of people out there that will run "Chkdsk -r" on a secondary partition, they may see almost all their ram used up while it is scanning the disk. If they have prexisting hardware or software glitches, it might blue screen on them. For the 90% of consumers who would never run chkdsk, and who don't have more then one parition, this is a complete non-issue.

Re:RAM optimization (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986723)

No, it's not tiny, in fact it could be a huge issue; however this is a chip set problem, not a win 7 problem.

Re:RAM optimization (4, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987591)

I regularly put customer's hard drives into a different computer as a secondary drive and run chkdsk. Your math sort of makes it seem like 4-5% of a market isn't a lot to account for, yet that 4-5% means in terms of the OS market hundreds of millions of users. Should we let you take those support calls?

Re:RAM optimization (2, Insightful)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987835)

Your math sort of makes it seem like 4-5% of a market isn't a lot to account for, yet that 4-5% means in terms of the OS market hundreds of millions of users.

I believe the OP said this:

For the 90% of consumers who would never run chkdsk, and who don't have more then one parition, this is a complete non-issue.

So really, it would be 10%. I sincerely doubt, however, that this chkdsk issue would affect more than an incredibly small number of systems. In other words, the grandparent is right. It's a non-issue.

Re:RAM optimization (2, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987621)

People need to stop thinking the crash is only caused by Chkdsk. It's also caused by the built-in disk check utility of Explorer.

It's not a "non-issue" (0, Troll)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987657)

You use the phrase "non-issue" twice in your post as well as pulling a "90%" figure completely out of thin air, which leads me to believe you're shilling for Microsoft here. It's not a non-issue, and the crash isn't just caused by chkdsk.exe but by the Windows disk check utility.

Also (-1, Troll)

Stu1706 (1392693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986599)

Also, I doubt there is a show stopping bug, being as Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista in reality.

Re:RAM optimization (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986655)

Haven't read many kdawson stories?

Re:RAM optimization (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987007)

How could he? There are no comments from him that could be called "stories". ^^

Re:RAM optimization (3, Funny)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987161)

I think it's time to dust off the 'kdawsonfud' tag!

Re:RAM optimization (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987649)

I don't want the /. eds to be Pulitzer Prize winners. I just don't want them to be so dumb that it makes my head hurt. Eventually I hope /. will just turn it over to the readers via firehose and save some money on "editors".

Re:RAM optimization (-1, Troll)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986713)

Exactly. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:RAM optimization (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986779)

2) You CAN spend RAM. If the whole RAM isn't used, you're just wasting it. In this case chkdsk.exe will use dynamically what there is left, making the process faster. How is this a bad thing?

This sounds a lot like the Outlook 2007 discussion on Vista (and some reports on XP). Vista has "advanced memory management" and Outlook "continually asks for RAM, as long as some is available". The result? Outlook allocates ~700M, according to the Task Manager process list, while the Physical Memory free (on a 3G system) reports 6% free. Closing Outlook brings the ram free percentage up to %60. Some MS MVP said just what you said "The RAM is available, so Outlook uses it and the program responds faster, that's a good thing", completely disregarding the fact that the computer is near unresponsive to everything else. A program should never take RAM "because it's available", it should take it "because it's needed". Using over 2G of RAM to open 3 emails is absurd, using 1G for texture and sound data is more reasonable.

Re:RAM optimization (4, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986857)

Hey, but it's nothing like that. Using all of your RAM to check a disk for damage and repair it in response to a user's specific request is not like having Outlook open in the background.

Re:RAM optimization (3, Interesting)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987675)

Actually isn't not unresponsive, Outlook will give up RAM quite happily and it's not opening 3 emails, it's keeping your entire PST/OST loaded into RAM so you don't bitch and complain when selecting different emails is "slow to load". Therefore if you have big .PST/OST expect for it to use alot of RAM.

However, I'm sitting on Windows 7 Ultimate x64 with 6GB of RAM and Outlook is using 200MB total including what's committed for use and what's it happily taking because it can. I have 457MB .OST (Exchange cached file) so wanting to load half of it's not unreasonable. Linux uses similar memory management system and I don't hear alot of complaining about it.

Re:RAM optimization (2, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#28988029)

I missed the part where having all your e-mail in one big file is a good thing. I've never had any problems with "slow to load" e-mails, whether I was using an offline e-mail client or being served e-mails from a webmail address. What exactly is so good about the PST/OST file that it's worth keeping EVERYTHING in RAM for? (I'm not being entirely sarcastic here, if there's a good reason for this, I'd like to know it).

Re:RAM optimization (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28988037)

"isn't not unresponsive"

Congratulations! You have plumbed a new depth in illiteracy. That's a triple negative. Did you really mean responsive or unresponsive?

You don't optimize disk utilities that way. (1, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987143)

I really really hate referencing Apple but guess what? Apple does allow insane amounts of caching in fsck_hfs but for some reason (!) it defaults to comical low , something like no cache.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man8/fsck_hfs.8.html [apple.com] (-c argument)

Why? Because system already has disk corruption issue, it could be also related to memory corruption. Also, thing runs on journaled volume with huge help from journal file. One should also admit how clever they hide it from `let me fix a working thing` type of user. Diskutil doesn't have that setting enabled in no kind of form (including hidden pref), plain fsck doesn't have it. It is _only_ fsck_hfs which can be only run giving a direct device name like /dev/disk0s3

On a machine which needs a very fast recovery and HD mechanism was suspicious, I have went up to 4GB. Obviously, it did everything in RAM and machine was 16Gig ECC Quad G5.

Re:RAM optimization (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987859)

"will use dynamically"

that's fine if the ideal dynamic utilization has zero overhead. So if I need it for something, I get it back without delay. In practice, if it adds anything to my system's ability to allocate whatever memory I need to open something else, then it sucks.

The only show this stopped... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986595)

...was that show where the rabid MS haters stopped sounding crazy.

The show must go on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986635)

At least here on Slashdot.

What about this one? (4, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986611)

It seems that if you install Windows 7 on the second hard drive, it will put it's system reserved boot partition on the first drive. This absolutely boggles my mind. Now I need both hard drives just to boot my system? I discovered this when Windows 7 fucked up my Chameleon installation. Then my Hackintosh wouldn't boot into OS X until I reinstalled Chameleon from the iAtkos disc. Then I had to unplug the OS X drive and reinstall Windows 7 so it would stick to it's own goddamned drive and leave the others alone.

Bad, BAD fucking move, Microsoft. Now Windows 7 can easily fuck up unrecognized partitions on other drives during installation. I really hope that gets fixed in the final version.

Re:What about this one? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986675)

Except during the install it says: "the system reserved partition will be installed on the first boot device."

I remember wondering why it was 100MB myself when I saw that.

Re:What about this one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986753)

don't you think while using a Hackintosh, trying to dual boot a beta OS, and probably some other crap you didn't mention that you might run into a few problems? And yeah, I am sure your dual boot hackintosh is on the top of the list for a fix.

Re:What about this one? (4, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986989)

don't you think while using a Hackintosh, trying to dual boot a beta OS, and probably some other crap you didn't mention that you might run into a few problems? And yeah, I am sure your dual boot hackintosh is on the top of the list for a fix.

Hi.

On the top of your browser, there's an address bar, after the http:/// [http] and before the next / does the word 'slashdot.org' appear?

I'm assuming yes, so seriously, what did you expect?

Re:What about this one? (1)

sarloth (1205380) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987953)

No. I do not see "http:///".

Re:What about this one? (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987695)

No dipshit, Hackintoshing has very little to do with it. As far as Windows 7 is concerned, it was simply another drive. That's all. The point of the matter is that it fucked up a partition that it didn't properly recognize. The same thing could happen to Linux installations as well. It's an ugly oversight that is NOT specific to Hackintoshes, so pull your head out of your ass.

Re:What about this one? (2, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986933)

I think if you use an existing partition instead of making a new one Windows will just put everything on one partition.

Anyways you could always copy the files and boot sector from the small partition to the Windows 7 one and raze the small one, then you just need to edit the BCD registry using EasyBCD or bootedit.exe to point to the correct partition on boot. But yeah those are both WINDOWS tools... but bootedit.exe should be available from Windows 7 Setup on the DVD if you mess up and can't boot into Windows (press SHIFT+F10), and fixboot.exe can install the boot sector onto any partition.

Re:What about this one? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987021)

Everyone who does this often knows to only have one disk installed in the machine when installing windows in order to prevent this from happening. Windows has been doing this for ages. I wish MS would just be up front about this in the installer though.

Re:What about this one? (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987189)

yup, thats why winders goes first, the linux and bsd. I perfer the BSD loader as its ez as pie! Also if you try to install windows last it'll destroy all the other records and its a pain to fix!

Re:What about this one? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987031)

This was the same for Vista's boot loader as well and has been well documented. They make it pretty clear what will happen if you try to do what you are doing. Caveat Emptor.

Re:What about this one? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987049)

When you install windows, Microsoft owns your machine. You should know this by now.

It's like selling your soul to the devil and then be surprised when he actually claims it.

Re:What about this one? (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987067)

How is that new? It is that way since Windows XP, and likely even the whole NT and old Windows line before that!

I know because I have this setup with Gentoo and XP on this computer, and I think I can remember it from Windows 98 too.

Re:What about this one? (3, Funny)

quantic_oscillation7 (973678) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987121)

it's a feature... all your drives belong to us...........

Re:What about this one? (5, Insightful)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987137)

Windows has never played nice with other operating systems one the same machine. The first rule of multiple-booting has always been "install Windows first".

Re:What about this one? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987335)

So, what does one do when one has to reinstall Windows? That happens often enough that it becomes a PITA to have to keep unplugging and shuffling drives around to keep their installer from finding and f*cking up every other partition.

Re:What about this one? (1)

alc6379 (832389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987683)

So, what does one do when one has to reinstall Windows? That happens often enough that it becomes a PITA to have to keep unplugging and shuffling drives around to keep their installer from finding and f*cking up every other partition.

Generally, Windows wants to boot from the FIRST partition of the FIRST drive. There are tricks you can use to get around this-- GRUB has methods of remapping devices and partitions so Windows "thinks" it's on the right drive. But, generally, you install Windows first, to first partition of our first drive, and then install the other OSes afterward. If you have to install Windows again, generally other OS install discs come with some kind of "rescue mode" where you can re-install your bootloader. For instance, you could use an Ubuntu CD, and with a few steps, restore the bootloader you had from the menu.lst file that grub created when you first installed Ubuntu.

But, as an aside, it's been my experience that having to reinstall Windows frequently is becoming more and more of a myth. I've had my Windows XP install running now just fine since I built my machine (over 2 years now), and the Vista install I have on another desktop has been chugging along for about a year and a half. Both machines are dual-booting with some other form of Linux or BSD...

Re:What about this one? (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987501)

Windows has never played nice with other operating systems one the same machine. The first rule of multiple-booting has always been "install Windows first".

Well, at least it no longer overwrites GRUB when installing (or at least Win7 RC didn't do that) - while XP always did.

Re:What about this one? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987583)

Windows has never played nice with other operating systems one the same machine

But at least Windows doesn't change the BIOS time.... Linux dutifully does that, every time...

Re:What about this one? (0, Redundant)

Fyzzle (1603701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987153)

Back when XP came out I had a bad time dual booting with anything. I guess I got in the habit of "Always install Windows first" then load up your alternate OSs

Not saying it's right, but it always works.

Re:What about this one? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987215)

yup, and yup to the genoo/xp dual boot too, microsoft goes to great lengths to not play nicely with other operating systems, i was hoping microsoft would change that attitude but hope is a cousin to dreams and we know both of those are not real...

looks like i wont be buying an OEM with windows7 on it later this year, the more unfriendly microsoft is to other OSs the more newegg gets my business (building my next desktop)

Re:What about this one? (4, Insightful)

xtravagan (1449719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987251)

You have obviously not installed many OS yourself, and if you really believe what you are writing you should probably stop installing those you already are installing. You can control exactly where and how you want any partitions to be, so even with windows 7. It has a certain default, which is to install a 100MB, let's call it, rescue partition.

Just pre partition the disk the way you want it and you won't have that extra partition. So perhaps the bad move is on your for not knowing what you are doing and still posting as if you did.

Re:What about this one? (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987731)

My point is that the user shouldn't have to bloody worry about it. Why should I have to prepartition my drive just to keep Windows from messing with other drives? It should stick to the installation drive by default, not require extra steps to keep it from messing with other drives in the system. Plopping the 100MB system reserved partition on another drive by default means I need BOTH drives to boot, which is stupid. But yes, my bad for assuming Microsoft would do things in a logical fashion.

What? (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987577)

This sounds like more of an invented problem than a real one.

I have three hard drives in my machine, one IDE and two SATA. I change the order of the drives from my BIOS and put Windows 7 on one of the drives.

When I want to boot to a different drives, I flip the drive order in the BIOS and that way no OS sees any other. I have Linux on one drive, Windows Vista on another and Windows 7 on the third, and each has its own little world.

Why even worry about boot loaders and the like, when its so easy to pick a drive to boot from in the BIOS, and disks are so relatively cheap.

Re:What about this one? (4, Funny)

lawnboy5-O (772026) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987627)

Its NOT a Bug.... its a FEATURE! It's from M$ correct? That's the way its supposed to be...

Re:What about this one? (1)

murph (16036) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987645)

I would not count on this behavior changing. Microsoft has no incentive to work well with other operating systems.

Re:What about this one? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987651)

Windows assumes that if you don't manually create partitions and instead tell it to do it automatically, it can put things where ever it wants. You basically told Windows "hey, just drop your stuff anywhere, thanks." on the other hand, if you had manually created a partition and then told Windows to use it, it would have.

The behavior might be slihtly sketchy, but it's not some horrible conspiracy.

7 Bashing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986627)

This is the official Windows 7 bashing thread.
Please bash here...

Re:7 Bashing (4, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986907)

# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/windowspartition

my pleasure.

Re:7 Bashing (1)

cichlid (463444) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987237)

# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/windowspartition

my pleasure.

Funny, this will crash linux if you don't have a /dev/windowspartition file (as most won't). It will create a regular file by that name and then fill the root partition (100% full given that you're running as root). Oops.

Big Linux fan but been there done that :-)

Re:7 Bashing (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987453)

I didn't wanted to write a complete script to make that joke that could have lost non bash speaking reader. It leads to the question : is there an easy way to detect windows partition ? Is checking for NTFS enough ?

I am not sure you will crash the system by filling all the disk. Sure most applications won't like it, but the system should stay alive.

Re:7 Bashing (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986955)

I prefer smashing

Re:7 Bashing (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986983)

Actually, I haven't seen a single person bash Windows 7 in this thread.

Here's how you bash Windows (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987867)

C:\> posix.exe /u /c /bin/csh -l
Welcome to the Interix UNIX utilities.

DISPLAY=localhost:0.0
% bash
bash: Command not found
% pkg_add bash-3.0.0.9.2-bin
[...]
% bash
bash-3.0$

Done!

Thank you, early adopters (0)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986669)

Seriously. You good folks get to hunt bugs, leaks, hacks, etc, and the rest of us get to have the benefits of your hard work.

Thanks.

Of course, I run OS-X and XP in VM on a MBP :P but some of my users don't.

We plan to adopt Win7 when XP is pried from our cold, lifeless hands. Or MS stops supporting/patching it. Will almost certainly skip right over Vistard.

Re:Thank you, early adopters (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987241)

that's what I did! I skipped vista like windows ME! I just recently installed 7 on my HTPC because of WMC and it works great! Just recently decided to give it a go on my old laptop (P4 2.4GHz, 512MB ram POS ATI GPU) and it actually runs good. It says my system rating is 1 based on the lowest score but my highest was 4.9 (hdd) and 2nd highest 3.1 (CPU) lol

XP, FBSD and SuSe ran great on it, so it's time to play with 7 on here.............

Big deal (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986687)

Don't run chkdsk before patching. If you need to run chkdsk before a patch comes out for this, I think you should take a look at your hardware, and then reinstall Windows.

Though if you were planning on using the beta until you can no longer handle the random shutdowns, this might be an issue. But then, that's probably a feature.

Just me. (-1, Troll)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986693)

Not to bash M$ or anything, but isn't

Microsoft - truth an oxymoron?

Re:Just me. (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986981)

Yeees. That's not bashing at *all*

Panties STINK! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986697)

Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!

Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!

Dear Microsoft: Take A Deep Breath (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28986795)

and DON'T exhale.

Yours In Health,
Kilgore T.

Nonissue (4, Informative)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986925)

If it is really such a serious bug, than it will be fixed with the first installation and following windows update. (or OEM patches).

No sane person runs a vanilla installation of windows.

Actually, in the first months when win 7 gets released, a lot of even more serious bugs will surface (because of the wide exposure). They also will be fixed and integrated in the update service. It's known that the first months of release is always the release test and fix cycle.

This is just how things go.

Disclaimer: I don't like windows, this is just an objective view.

Re:Nonissue (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987409)

There's no doubt in my mind more bugs will surface with the much wider install, but if this site [hitslink.com] is correct Windows 7 is already close to 1% of the OS market, a respectable install base for an unreleased OS.

Re:Nonissue (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987647)

Ignoring your number for a moment and asserting they are right,

the current user base are technically inclined folks (you have to make some effort to get it before official release) who manage to avoid specific bugs that will show up when millions of monkeys start to bash the system (OEM's install and sell it to regular Joe/Jane).

You really want to imply that those two testing environments have anything to do with each other?

Re:Nonissue (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987909)

Obviously they are not perfectly analogous. But current (more technical) users are also more likely to correctly report bugs. In addition, not all of the current users are techies. Speaking only for myself, I have migrated a number of friends/family to Windows 7 RC because there were running Vista. *shudder*

Re:Nonissue (1)

edcheevy (1160545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987941)

While I'm on the subject of W7 bugs, I've said this before and I'll say it again: be wary of Homegroup. It's great when it works and it usually works, but it can destroy all it touches if it gets upset.

/twocents

Re:Nonissue (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987929)

No sane person runs a vanilla installation of windows.

Errrrr, yes they do. Organisations the world over do not install lots of individual Windows updates unless one or two are absolutely necessary. They always (if they're sane) create a build from the known vanilla install and then service pack increments as they become available so they always know exactly what is installed on all their systems at any given time.

However, since it will be many, many years before most organisations upgrade again then it's all academic really.

Arcane? (1)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28986967)

From TFA:

The issue [...] involves a fairly arcane process used to check for problems in a particular disk.

So chkdsk is an 'arcane' process now? I've gotten used to the mainstream press always trying to dumb down anything even remotely technical, but shouldn't cnet be a little bit better? Guess not.

Re:Arcane? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987099)

They meant arcane as in 'mystic'. Because chkdsk is a mystical process *POOF*!

Re:Arcane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987111)

So chkdsk is an 'arcane' process now?

What, you think it belongs in the nature, shadow, or fire schools?

Re:Arcane? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987123)

From TFA:

The issue [...] involves a fairly arcane process used to check for problems in a particular disk.

So chkdsk is an 'arcane' process now? I've gotten used to the mainstream press always trying to dumb down anything even remotely technical, but shouldn't cnet be a little bit better? Guess not.

Well it is specific to running chkdsk /r on a secondary hard drive, but you're right.

The two real reasons it's not a problem are Windows Update and the fact that this is caused by a buggy Intel chipset driver that's already been fixed.

Re:Arcane? (2, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987233)

"chkdsk" isn't an arcane process. "chkdsk -r" on this particular chipset employs an arcane process to do an in depth check for physical problems on the drive. In other words, this bug: only affects people running "chkdsk -r" on a secondary hard drive, with a particular chipset, who have not update their chipset driver, and is caused by an arcane process within the un-updated driver. I'm hardly a Microsoft apologist, but this seems like a Hell of a tempest in a teapot to me.

(As a side note, anybody know how capitalization works when a sentence begins with a reference to a command? Changing the first letter to a capital actually changes the name of the command, at least in Unix, so it seems like the wrong thing to do.)

Re:Arcane? (2, Informative)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987305)

Not sure how it works with options -r -R, I believe this is dependent on the program. However, capitalization is irrelevant in Windows as Windows is case insensitive.

trying to remember... (1)

pwolf (1016201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987039)

when was the last time I used chkdsk... can't remember. i guess i'm ok!

Payback is a... (5, Funny)

gklinger (571901) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987047)

Dear Microsoft,

It sucks when people spread FUD, doesn't it?

chkdsk sure has problems on windows 7 RC (0)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987059)

If you use windows, you sure know the chkdsk /f command which normally defaults to C: and if your system definately has a disk problem, it will act really bad. Solution? chkdsk /F with Windows key+R

When you chkdsk /f in certain situations like after installing software, it does act very interestingly at boot time and claims there is a problem caused by a recent installation so AUTOCHK won't be able to continue.

BTW MS, you still keep AUTOCHK registry entry up and running? For what? Easier rootkit installation? Is there any kind of abuse left which has not been applied on the AUTOCHK including defragmenters?

As I flame them, I would of course report the issue if someone gives me a URL for easy bug reporting. like bugreporter.apple.com . I can`t stand to their bangalore template monkeys powered forum.

Windows = Has Major Bugs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987071)

Now, before you mod it flamebait, just listen:

- Windows 7 is probably million+ lines of code.

- Defect prevention can only prevent so many defects for the effort expended.

- Windows 7 costs (~$200)/copy, which places an upper-bound on the budget for defect prevention.

It is only logical to conclude that Windows 7 contains several major defects. Like bears s****** in the woods, it's just the nature of things.

So, don't be shocked if a showstopper bug shows up ... in fact, it would be more surprising if there were no bugs at all.

Re:Windows = Has Major Bugs (1)

heffrey (229704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987317)

Million lines of code?! Are you crazy? My 5 developer app has 600,000 loc windows xp reportedly had 35 million i'd guess 7 has over 50 million.

Re:Windows = Has Major Bugs (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28988041)

Million lines of code?! Are you crazy? My 5 developer app has 600,000 loc windows xp reportedly had 35 million i'd guess 7 has over 50 million.

No, I think he meant there's a million lines of Bugs in the code. :-)

Since when ... (-1, Troll)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987281)

... does Microsoft consider something that can freeze their O/S to be a show stopper?

Particularly if its something the user has to initiate (with a particular command option, for example). Just blame it on the user.

Re:Since when ... (2, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987385)

The problem was never with Windows to begin with:

UPDATE: After emailing back and forth with the VP Sinofsky, it was found that the chkdsk /r tool is not at fault here. It was simply a chipset controller issue. Please update you chipset drivers to the current driver from your motherboard manufacturer. I did mine, and this fixed the issue. Yes it still uses alot of physical memory, because your checking for physical damage, and errors on the Harddrive your testing. I'm currently completed the chkdsk scan with no BSODÃ(TM)s or computer sluggishness. Feel free to do this and try it for yourselves. Again, there is no Bug. Thanks all.

http://www.bluescreenofdeath.org/?p=94#comment-134 [bluescreenofdeath.org] Yay kdawson fud articles!

Proper facts please (2, Informative)

xtravagan (1449719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987417)

I just don't understand why you can't post correct factual posts, is that so hard??

On my machine, with 12GB of memory it uses up 10GB, I still have over 1GB of free memory (10%), the computer is not sluggish and working fine.

If you get an BSOD from this, you should know that it most likely comes from a driver that has not been verfied under low memory scenarios, which is a prerequisit for being WHQL certfied. It is also part of the Driver Verfier supplied by MS.

To me this seems like a good design, if you have surface scanning the HD (like once in a life time) it is very likely that you don't want to do much else with the computer any way.

I will run this on a low end hardware too, as it is a good way to test that your drivers are in order, but it is very likely not at all connected to chkdsk.

Maybe those that experience BSOD, experience them when they play games too? I guess that's the OS fault too.

I guess yesterday when I ran "gmake -j" on a single core SuSe Linux machine, and it entirely stopped responding, I lost med SSH connections and could barely navigate it through the console is a much better option =)

Re:Proper facts please (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987643)

Because kdawson is slashdot's resident FUD artist. If he actually posted factual stories that didn't contain overblown anti-Microsoft FUD he'd be fired.

Re:Proper facts please (3, Funny)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28988049)

Nah, he wouldn't be fired.

He would just choke on his own vomit.

sounds like a QA problem (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987745)

someone should have caught this LONG ago. Duh.

Re:sounds like a QA problem (1)

xtravagan (1449719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987761)

They did, and it is by design.

Re:sounds like a QA problem (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987843)

Except the bug was never with chdsk to begin with. It was a bug in a chipset controller. Way to fall for the FUD.

Re:sounds like a QA problem (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28987895)

That should be chipset controller driver.

Rather than Deep Breath... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28987747)

He could have signed off by getting up from the chair...well...uh...uhh...where is the chair?

Oh I thought this would have been the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28988025)

I've never heard anything about this being fixed:

http://www.hardwaretricks.net/2009/05/07/windows-7-slammed-with-proof-of-concept-rootkit/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?