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 .NET Patch May Make PCs Go "Haywire"

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the danger-will-robinson-danger dept.

212

yuna49 writes "Various people are reporting that the MS07-040 patch for .NET released on Tuesday can cause a variety of seemingly unrelated problems. According to the SANS Internet Storm Center 'the reports we got so far seem not to lead to any specific thing that happens in many cases, just various things going haywire.' Some commentators on The Register's report of this story indicate that the patch failed to install at all, while others report things like the mouse suddenly failing to work or long periods of hard drive thrashing. In some cases a hard reboot seems to fix the problem, but other reports suggest that a reinstallation of the .NET framework itself is required. The problems may be related to the MSCORSVW.EXE process which recompiles all the .NET assemblies when the patch is downloaded. While the recompilations are supposed to run as a background task, in some instances the recompilation will drive the processor to 100% usage."

cancel ×

212 comments

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

Sonofa... (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847639)

That's why my box was running so slow yesterday morning. Drove me and the other IT guys a bit nuts trying to figure it out. Eventually it got better on its own.

Re:Sonofa... (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847679)

Same here. I imagine this story has inspired many a resounding "d'oh!"

Re:Sonofa... (4, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847685)

Well, I can't admit to seeing any issues here, not that it denies the existence of them elsewhere.

I'm quite surprised that this doesn't happen more often, actually. The last time I remember a problem with a Windows Update that made the news was sometime towards the end of last year. Someone can correct me, though, if they feel the need.

Re:Sonofa... (0, Offtopic)

Blieb (788872) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847717)

Resistence is futile.

Re:Sonofa... (-1, Offtopic)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847817)

I was using the box to transcode video to watch TV in the living room. I noticed the reduced performance, but thought it was just Windows being stupid again. I wasn't far off, I guess.

If anyone knows a good (video) transcoding DLNA server for Linux, I'm looking. TVersity is pretty doggone good... But... Windows. -sigh- Had to host it on my gaming PC and I'd rather have it on my 'server'. I've tried gmediaserver, fuppes and mediatomb, but I could find none that transcode video on Linux. (Fuppes was by far the best of the 3, for those that care, and can transcode audio, but not video.)

Re:Sonofa... (2, Interesting)

duguk (589689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847999)

Mine's been trying to install the same patch on shutdown for about 3 days now... is it related? How can I find out what its trying to install? Should I just install Gentoo again!?!

Re:Sonofa... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848119)

Should I just install Gentoo again!?!

Didn't read the rest of your note, but yes.

Re:Sonofa... (5, Funny)

J0nne (924579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849139)

If your processor is going to be recompiling stuff constantly anyway, you might aswell use Gentoo ;).

JOHNNY 5 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847665)

is ALIVE!

Nickname for the Patch (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847669)

the MS07-040 patch May Make PCs Go "Haywire"
Considering that "Haywire" is a way to describe chair throwing monkey dances, I propose we nickname this patch "The Ballmer Patch" maybe even tag it theballmerpatch since it could make your computer DEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERSDEVELOPERS.

Re:Nickname for the Patch (1)

mackil (668039) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849359)

Makes perfect sense. He couldn't get Google so he's taking it out on us, his poor customers.

Sit on it... (4, Insightful)

Heem (448667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847693)

And this is why I sit on patches for at least a couple of weeks.

"Declined"

Shit on it... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847969)

And this is why I sit on patches for at least a couple of weeks.
What's your IP address, my perpetually vulnerable friend?

Re:Shit on it... (4, Funny)

michrech (468134) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848227)

And this is why I sit on patches for at least a couple of weeks.
What's your IP address, my perpetually vulnerable friend?
127.0.0.1

Re:Shit on it... (5, Funny)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849385)

And this is why I sit on patches for at least a couple of weeks.

What's your IP address, my perpetually vulnerable friend?

127.0.0.1

Aha! Any second now your system will be shutti

Re:Sit on it... (1)

Heem (448667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848241)

I also would never be dumb enough to expose any microsoft machines to the internets.
All I have to fear is my internal users, who can't figure out the correct place to type the URL in their web browser (you know, the "blue e thing")

Re:Sit on it... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848707)

Only here do people gloat about how incompetent they are at being a sysadmin.

Re:Shit on it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848259)

127.0.0.1

Re:Shit on it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848905)

Or 127.0.0.2, for that matter...

Re:Sit on it... (5, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848283)

It's a remote code execution fix. It is irresponsible to dismiss it out of hand. If you're not applying the patch, you have up to three workarounds per system to apply. The workaround, by the way, is basically to disable Active Scripting. That is, no Java Script and no ActiveX controls. That's typically not satisfactory. The IIS ASP.NET fix is to strip NULLs from input. That's not going to happen very easily for proprietary web app software.

Are you also "sitting on" MS07-039? Denial of service on AD is bad. Every admin I know applied this patch on Tuesday.

You also, you know, could be testing the patch in your environment before deployment to see if any issues arise.

The issue is also fairly uncommon from what I've seen. The majority of admins I've heard from have experienced no issues. If it's actually an issue with the patch and not just a AV scanner file locking issue due to the patch being 15 MB (which it has been for at least two people I've heard from) then MS will issue a revision.

A far, far worse bug is the fact that can break recent versions of Sharepoint.

Re:Sit on it... (4, Insightful)

Heem (448667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848349)

A week or so isn't going to be the end of the world. I'll wait for you guys to break your environments. I mean, if they are patching something - it HAS been broken all this time - since I installed the box. it didn't just break yesterday and then the patch came right out.

And plus, all my boxes are only on the internal network. Sure, they say your worst enemy is your own employees - I say my worst enemy is broken Microsoft Patches.

So go ahead, upgrade your boxes on patch tuesday. I've just had way to many experiences where that has caused me serious grief.

 

Re:Sit on it... (3, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848407)

So go ahead, upgrade your boxes on patch tuesday. I've just had way to many experiences where that has caused me serious grief.

I'm picturing the classic "Far Side" cartoon depicting the herd of lemmings (herd? is that what they group in?) rushing down the beach and into the sea with singleminded determination, except for one smartass lemming wearing an inner tube flotation thingie and smiling knowingly at the viewer.

Of course, I did the singleminded-lemming thing Tuesday at home, and nothing's puking visibly yet. But on the gripping hand, the military network environment I work with tends to very carefully evaluate these Microsoft patches before letting them loose on their systems. I guess the network admins want to be the sole authority on unplanned outages, rather than outsourcing to the vendor.

Re:Sit on it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849387)

A week or so isn't going to be the end of the world. I'll wait for you guys to break your environments. I mean, if they are patching something - it HAS been broken all this time - since I installed the box. it didn't just break yesterday and then the patch came right out.

No, but now there is some documentation of security risks in .NET, making it easy to develop exploits. Given the ubiquity of .NET in many applications/websites these days, a documented security hole can cause a lot of trouble.

So, do you run the risk of an unpatched box? Or do you run the risk of a patch that breaks things? That's the problem.

For some of us, for security problems in important systems, the only solution is to very quickly apply the patch on a test machine, verify & test that everything works, then apply to production machines.

For other security problems, where it can be mitigated, you have the luxury of a long testing cycle.

Mod parent up (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848713)

Interesting and mature response. Sorry, have no points today...

So That's It (1)

neltana (795825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847697)

Okay, I noticed my laptop thrashing away like crazy last night just before I went to bed. One of the offending processes was MSCORSVW.EXE. Since I was tired, I just shut it down and figured I would look into it later. This saves me some research!

It didn't seem to cause a problem on any of my other PCs, though.

Re:So That's It (0, Troll)

asliarun (636603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847783)

Since I was tired, I just shut it down and figured I would look into it later. This saves me some research!
Aah my friend, in your weariness, you stumbled upon the magic solution for all Microsoftie ailments...

REBOOT! (and rejoice, and talk to me about uptime later)

Re:So That's It (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847875)

Ya, because you're really l337 running a laptop 24/7!!11

Re:So That's It (1)

neltana (795825) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848127)

My laptop spends most of its time plugged in and in hibernate mode. It lives in the Family Room and is used mainly to look up things on IMDB when my wife and I have the "where do I know that guy from...?" conversation.

Probably, I should shut it down overnight. It might save a bit of electricity (I think the transformer draws a constant trickle). But I'm a slave to convenience...it's nice to be able to grab it and look something up quickly.

That's one of the reasons why I have MS patches auto-update...I would never get around to maintaining the darn thing otherwise. I suppose this is one of the downsides of that approach: I get to beta test all of MS's patches.

Re:So That's It (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848437)

My comment wasn't directed at you, it was the person who replied to you and mentioned uptime. I see now that my post was confusing.

FWIW, hibernate is the same as shutting the laptop down as far as power goes, so you'll get the same power draw as if it was plugged in but turned off.

Re:So That's It (3, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848131)

Come on, give the Microsofties some credit - there are many things they can attempt:


1) Retry
2) Restart
3) Reboot
4) Reconfigure
5) Repatch
6) Reinstall (app)
7) Reformat
8) Rebuild (os + app)
9) Retry (everything from 1-8)
10) Relinquish/Reassign/Reject (project/task)
11) Resign
12) Resume/Resumé ;)

If this is the .NET 1.1 fix... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847699)

...then I'm glad to see others having problems. It tried to install twice, but kept coming up as a pending patch. On the third try, I figured it must be fucked on MS end, and disabled the install and told update to ignore it from now on. *shrug*

Re:If this is the .NET 1.1 fix... (1)

el_gordo101 (643167) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849065)

I believe that you are (partially) correct, it is for .NET Framework versions 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. AFAIK, v3.0 is not affected by the vulnerability. Just a wild-assed guess here, but If you have any beta or CTP versions of the 1.1 or 2.0 Framework, that may be causing issues as well. That bit me in the ass a while back when I tried to install some of the latest versions MS dev tools. Had to uninstall the beta/preview versions of the Framework (and any beta/preview applications that relied on them such as SQL Server 2005, SQL Mobile Version, Visual Studio, etc.) then install the full release versions of the Framework and applications before anything would work. Good luck!

mother of all f.uck ups (1, Funny)

dv83r (1105887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847707)

"If Assumption the mother of all fuck ups, then surely it is also the father of all Microsoft engineering."

ProcessExplorer task manager replacement (3, Informative)

StickInTheMud94 (1127619) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847713)

When this 100% cpu utilization was happening I called up Process Explorer http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/util ities/ProcessExplorer.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:ProcessExplorer task manager replacement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847761)

Okay, okay, I'm following you. I'm listening. And.... and......
and..?

What's the punchline? Where's the climax of the story? Where's the conclusion? I think your post was missing something..?
So, what about ProcessExplorer? You called up Process Explorer, and......? What about it?
Was the 100% usage blocking task manager and you had to use process explorer, or what?

Re:ProcessExplorer task manager replacement (1)

goarilla (908067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848617)

i agree why is this modded up so high ffs
everybody on /. knows that one needs some sysinternals tools: filemon,diskmon,procexp,pagedefrag,...
to make windows at least bearable

100% CPU ? (5, Insightful)

herve_masson (104332) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847719)

in some instances the recompilation will drive the processor to 100% usage

No, kidding ? You mean the background task don't deliberately leave CPU cycles for the sake of increasing idle time ? Amazing.
This kind of summary don't push me hard to RTFA.

Re:100% CPU ? (2, Funny)

weicco (645927) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847955)

Remember kids, saving clock cycles is like putting money in the bank.

Hmh. That sound funnier in finnish.

Re:100% CPU ? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848485)

Anything sounds funny in finnish. :p

Re:100% CPU ? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848097)

Exactly. You want it running at the equivalent of "nice -19 recompile-dotnet" so that it is using 100% of the CPU but yielding it to anything else that asks. You don't want it to run for days and days, after all.

Re:100% CPU ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848715)

I think the problem is that Windows does not have an equivalent priority manager for the virtual memory system, so if the background program uses up memory, all the user apps get swapped out, the hard disk begins thrashing and the system feels slow. This isn't of course specific to windows, but at least in linux/BSD/OSX there is a way to limit the disk or swap IO.

Or maybe you can control swappiness/VM priority in Windows?

Win 2k not affected? (2, Informative)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847737)

I installed this on my Windows 2000 box yesterday and I haven't seen any problems so far. *shrug* Maybe it's just a Win XP thing.

Re:Win 2k not affected? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847803)

I would expect it to be much more noticeable if you have Visual Studio, and all of .NET 1.0, .NET 1.1, .NET 2.0 installed. (Visual Studio adding several large assemblies, and separate ngenning for each framework version.) .NET 3.0 will also add a lot of assemblies.

If you run x64 Windows, then you'll probably run into even more duplicate work.

So, I would expect most W2K machines won't have VS2005 and certainly not .NET 3.0. This will make the NGen execution much shorter.

Re:Win 2k not affected? (4, Interesting)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848113)

No, it's just an uncommon issue. On the NT admin mailing lists I'm on, only a handful of people have reported problems. Most responses to the thread have been "1000 systems patched here, no problems reported" and the like.

The patch is also nearly 15 MB, which is huge for a patch. Some people have just been having problems with their AV scanners locking the file to scan while Automatic Updates wants to begin installing it (see MS KB 883825 [microsoft.com] ). That's not a MS issue. It's arguably not even an AV vendor issue. Mostly it's an issue with admins not excluding the updates download directory.

Re:Win 2k not affected? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849447)

Some people have just been having problems with their AV scanners locking the file to scan while Automatic Updates wants to begin installing it (see MS KB 883825 [microsoft.com]). That's not a MS issue. It's arguably not even an AV vendor issue. Mostly it's an issue with admins not excluding the updates download directory.

Its nothing to do with admins folders or rights but more to do with a 450+mb temp file being scanned that is created in your .NET directory while it (mscore) recompiles the updated libraries, any virus scanner is going to get upset when its presented with a 450+ mb file to scan

i discovered this temp file creation when a box told me it was out of space with a 1gb free (should be enough) which i thought was odd seeing as the patch was only 8mb
so i did a quick scan of the system using SpaceMonger (an app that visualises file space and shows you which files are large and where) and sure enough there was a huge temp file in the NET directory (it was deleted after patching)

How about failed standby mode? (1)

Samedi1971 (194079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847751)

I haven't seen any of the issues mentioned, but after I installed the update my PC failed to wake up after being put in standby mode. Fans and drives powered up, but no signs of intelligent life. This happened the first two times I put it in standby after installing the update and rebooting. Since then I've put it in standby 3-4 times without any problems.

I don't know if it's related or not, but with everything else on the machine working fine, I was suspecting the update before it magically started working again.

Re:How about failed standby mode? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848109)

I have a laptop running XP Home that will not enter Standby mode now (after applying this patch), a dlg box pops up claming that a .Net service is preventing the system from entering standby.

Re:How about failed standby mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848685)

Both of my XP Pro machines did this as well - one a Dell laptop, and the other an IBM desktop.

Familiar symptoms? (2, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847753)

others report things like the mouse suddenly failing to work or long periods of hard drive thrashing. In some cases a hard reboot seems to fix the problem, but other reports suggest that a reinstallation of the .NET framework itself is required

Wait; so, random failures, hard drive thrashing, rebooting and/or reinstalling works? Isn't that the normal user experience in Windows anyhow?

DUPE! ;)

Re:Familiar symptoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847775)

no

Re:Familiar symptoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847829)

yes

Re:Familiar symptoms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847859)

maybe
itsatrap
haha

Re:Familiar symptoms? (1)

timhillu03 (903863) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848813)

I'm not sure whether it's funny or scary that you are modded insightful.

Ubuntu Unaffected (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847755)

Dare I say this did not affect my Ubuntu boxes?

Re:Ubuntu Unaffected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847879)

Just wait for the Mono enhancement.

OK then, so...? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847769)

OK then, so everyone goof up every once in a while, I can't really blame them for that, but when is there a patch for the patch then?

Re:OK then, so...? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847825)

Just wait for NGen to complete. The issues with the patch failing to install might warrant a patch, though.

Re:OK then, so...? (0, Troll)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847927)

Yes, the Ubuntu Live CD.

Re:OK then, so...? (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848487)

Stupid Debians can't handle my RAID yet...

Fedora, however, is the ticket.

Now, if only Xen would properly acknowledge that my X2 /F2 stepping processor can virtualize...

emerge --pv dev-lang/dotnet-runtime-1.1 (2)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847777)

For a minute there, it sounded like Microsoft had moved to Gentoo for their package management... ;)

Disclaimer: I use and like Gentoo, for all its misgivings, so no flames please!

a bit off topic but do you remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848193)

How you during the installation had to choose a kernel and were given advice on which to choose. It went something like this.

Gentoo-sources is the recommended choice.

Linux.org base kernel is for those who like to live on the edge. (This is gentoo, we REALLY mean the edge)

linux BETA, for those who like to live dangerous.

I al ways thought one was missing.

MS Windows, COME AND GET ME!

If running Beta linux code is risky then running MS windows surely is like playing russian roulette with a pistol. (For those who don't know, you play russian roulette with a revolver. Google the difference)

Oh sure, this may be flamebait but ask yourselve this. What exactly are you paying MS for? Were is all that support and testing that free software just can't provide?

Had strange network problems (1)

mpn14tech (716482) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847789)

After installing patches on Wednesday I started having a peculiar problem when running vmware 5.4. The host box network connectivity would be lost. It would take a reboot of the machine to reestablish the network connection. I also had one unexpected system reboot when running the arp command while troubleshooting the problem. The problem appears to have gone away once I uninstalled the latest patches. No way to know which one was causing the problem. This was on a Windows XPSP2 box.

CPU usage (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847819)

While the recompilations are supposed to run as a background task, in some instances the recompilation will drive the processor to 100% usage.

Sounds like Microsoft are Secretly Monopolizing the CPU Without Being Root [slashdot.org]

They'd better not have nicked my code or they're in trouble. It's GPL 3 I'll have you know...

Win2003 (1)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847837)

on a[n] [un]related note, the win2003 server at the company I work for had its partition table corrupted by wednesday morning. Last time the server was alive was midnight tuesday. They can't figure out what happened, other than "some updates were installed".

I rebuilt the partitions with some magical software. Everything seems to be okay at this point. Anyone know if this is related? The only unusual thing that happened to this otherwise "reliable" server were the updates.

Re:Win2003 (4, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847939)

Wed morning? The day before was patch tuesday. Why is your company installing patches on production servers they day they come out?

You should have a test machine set up and run ALL new patches on it for at least a few days to make sure they don't hork anything up before rolling them out to production machines.

Re:Win2003 (4, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848185)

On the other hand, a broken partition table due to a random hardware error (or any other bug causing a write there) would probably not be detected until the next reboot anyway.

Re:Win2003 (1)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848229)

It is a tiny server, mostly unimportant (except to my division), and after i got it back up and running, I discovered that automatic updates were set to download and install automatically and silently.

So I'm left to wonder (and may never find out)... Did the update cause the problem/break the partition table, or did the act of the reboot due to the update simply point out the issue which was caused by an unrelated issue? The system was up for quite some time until that update....

Re:Win2003 (1)

DanEllisUK (761274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848257)

Uncanny, I recommended to a colleague to update his machine which he did last night. Later that evening his machine would not boot, looked like the partition table was screwed. He opted for a reinstall.... doh. Could this actually be related?

Re:Win2003 (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848511)

Doubtful. I had a computer running for weeks at a time. I shut it down to install my new (for 2001) NVidia card. When I booted up, I got a message saying that the MBR could not be read. The drive failed physically as even when I recovered my data, I could not get anything to write to the MBR. I suspect the drive failed while it was running at some point.

background task & 100% CPU (4, Interesting)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847839)

A background task that's taking 100% cpu is perfectly fine, so long as it is a background task and is running on a below normal priority.

I frequently make processes that run at 100% CPU run as a background task.

no kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847841)


yeah no kidding somethings broken, my task manager screensaver used to display usage from 0-100% (Win2k AS)
until those updates and now according to the TM iam using

-152% cpu

So apart from the negative cpu process usage numbers everything else seems fine, oh apart from the installer process needing 450mb! free space to install/compile an 8mb patch
a complete 1.1 & 2.0 net install now needs 1+gb space to run that 300kb widget , bloatware at its finest (soon be catching java on how big a library can get)

Damned KB935807 patch (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847843)

You sure it's not related to patch KB935807? On three seperate computers running Vista, I could not get this patch to install. It would try to install, then after a reboot or two, it would report back its status as failing. After doing a quick google search, I soon found out that I'm not alone!

And yes, I've tried downloading the patch file and installing manually. No go.

Re:Damned KB935807 patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849413)

Ah at last I was I'm not the only one. That f**king 935807 patch on Vista got my pc in such a total reboot cycle whereby it was constantly "Configuring updates", rebooting ad infinitum that I eventually in disgust after 5 hours, reformatted and reinstalled, which then worked fine. Go figure. Microsoft have really f**ked up here.

I installed it and.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19847895)

my computer asploded [uncyclopedia.org]

External USB Harddrive (1)

redfoxtx (1127629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19847911)

Yeah, this one seems to of got me as well, or at least I think so. Patches installed by themselves, and Windows did it's reboot thing overnight. When I logged in the next day, one of my USB hard drives wasn't recognized. Now whenever it's plugged in, just AC, not USB, the activity LED goes crazy. Anyone heard anything like this, or any way to rectify.

Re:External USB Harddrive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848065)

upgrade to vista.

Failure loop (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848049)

For me, that particular patch installation failed. Then the windows update service informed me updates were available, including that patch. Let it try again. Failure. To stop the update service from informing me that this broken patch was available for me to try to install, I had to tell it to ignore that particular patch.

Woo, QC.

Re:Failure loop (1)

CptRevelation (1053978) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848539)

Yeah I had the same thing happen to me when that patch tried to install it failed, restarted the computer and went to the site to download it directly. Same thing happened again with it failing, a little "rinse and repeat" brought another failure so I made the system ignore it as well.

Simple solution to the problem... (Funny) (4, Funny)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848061)

Come on... We all know the routine here on M$ boxes... Reboot it a couple times until we realize it is shot... Stick in the repair cd so that it can finish the job of killing it... Then wax the whole thing and reinstall... Explain to the user that all their data is gone and when they get that "deer caught in headlights" look, tell them they should have backed up to their data... Hm... Missing anything here??

Just a typical day in windows land...

Re:Simple solution to the problem... (Funny) (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848251)

Any time you have to put (Funny) in the title... it's not.

Re:Simple solution to the problem... (Funny) (1)

Vulva R. Thompson, P (1060828) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848961)

So how do you like working at Geek Squad?

Re:Simple solution to the problem... (Funny) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849367)

This isn't so much a "Funny" post as it is an informative one. Thanks for posting the contents of the MCSE (Mouse Clicking Solutions Expert) study guide, dude!

100%? (1)

Karellen (104380) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848093)

"While the recompilations are supposed to run as a background task, in some instances the recompilation will drive the processor to 100% usage."

Um, so? If the processor isn't doing anything else, why shouldn't a background recompile use up 100% processor time? Don't tell me Windows gives time to the "idle" process when there are other processes, even background ones, that could run?!?

XP is actually pretty solid... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848221)

To all the people that have to say something about how this is just typical Windows for you, what exactly are you doing to your poor machines? I work on XP machines all day, and I find that if they're kept up to date with patches, antivirus, and antispyware then this kind of thing is very rare. 95% of my "Windows" problems are caused by 3rd parties like Adobe doing stupid things with their updaters and such.

Quit clicking on every shiny ad you see - you won't get an Xbox for catching a monkey.

Re:XP is actually pretty solid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19848561)

work on XP machines all day, and I find that if they're kept up to date with patches, antivirus, and antispyware then this kind of thing is very rare.

I spend less time maintaining my car than you do maintaining your windows machines.

Re:XP is actually pretty solid... (1)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849293)

OK, sort of a solution ... don't use any 3rd party apps and Windows will not "decay". However, that doesn't help people who have to get real work done and NEED a lot of useful apps from different sources. These must go insane, like I did when I still used Windows ...

Duh. Cared to look at the date? (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848299)

Friday 13th, anyone?

How anyone would install an MS patch without first performing some exocism and have a Voodoo priest sacrifice a chicken is beyond me anyway. I have been doing this for years now and so far, no incompatibilities.

Ok, using Ubuntu and Gentoo might have something to do with it, too, but I'm fairly confident of my chicken patching technique.

Technical term: "Haywire?" (2, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848525)

You know things are getting bad when even supposedly technical types start to use this kind of language. In a few years we can expect to see serious techie-to-techie channels postings saying things like "The CPU went kerblooie" and "The disk became discombobulated" and "Don't apply this patch if you're not a real computer genius..."

Re:Technical term: "Haywire?" (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849325)

In our office ~10 yrs ago, we used to describe printers as "crapping out". Everyone knew what that meant.

my fix: install-uninstall-reinstall (1)

jcgam69 (994690) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848563)

This is what worked for me. After I installed the patch a few of our .NET 2.0 sites broke with a generic "object reference not set to an instance of an object" error, so I called microsoft tech support. After sending the requested log files I decided to uninstall and reinstall the patch. It worked! It's worth a try...

A question for Microsoft experts here... (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848847)

Looks like there's lots of experts from Microsoft on these boards everyday, posting 'mitigating factors' in response to even the slightest criticism.... okay, I've got a real important qn. for you:

Let's say I've got a 100 PCs running XP... every month, on average I think there's about 20MB or so of patches downloaded and installed. That would mean 240MB per year, or 1GB over 4 years. Now suppose a system goes broke, or a new one has just come in. Is there a simple way to install XP ALONG WITH these patches, in one go?

Maybe a separate Ask Slashdot qn. is in order, but I thought I'd rather ask now, seeing as we have another broken patch.

Nope. There is no *simple* way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849077)

...to do this short of manually "building" an installed running machine with all the patches, and then making a disk image (e.g. with Ghost or similar disk partition image utility). However, creating any such custom installation media of the XP plus all service packs and patches merged together in one install is technically a violation of the EULA unless you are an OEM licensed by MS to create install medias.

Re:A question for Microsoft experts here... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849097)

you can set a WSUS sever

Re:A question for Microsoft experts here... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19849235)

you can set a WSUS sever

...and rapidly propagate these buggy, system-corrupting patches just like this one to hundreds of PCs on your network as fast and automated as possible too!

Re:A question for Microsoft experts here... (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849149)

Why, yes! Of course there is! There are two ways to go about this:
1. Install XP, then all the patches later, and manually.
2. "Slipstream them" -- replace the files on the XP CD with the newer ones. nLite http://www.nliteos.com/ [nliteos.com] is pretty good for this stuff.

If you want to download all the patches so that you can slipstream them or install them later, AutoPatcher http://www.autopatcher.com/ [autopatcher.com] is the way to go.

If you have a Windows server somewhere, WSUS is a good option (though somewhat heavier).

Re:A question for Microsoft experts here... (1)

el_gordo101 (643167) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849409)

You can create an install disk that "slipstreams" any service packs and hot fixes. Here's a couple of resources:

Paul Thurotte's Windows SuperSite [winsupersite.com]

Some dude's Blog Site [smithii.com] (I have never used his scripts and I make no promises that it will work).

could explain a few things (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 7 years ago | (#19848867)

my kids have been having trouble the last few days with wireless connections dying and their mice stopping.

my Debian Laptop is the only computer in the house that hasn't had trouble.

Re:could explain a few things (1)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849199)

Shouldn't that have been their wireless connections stopping and mice dying... I would start by telling your kids to clean their rooms so they don't have mice to start with.

I AM VINDICATED! (1)

Melanie1001 (515714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849309)

I spent all day Wednesday trying to figure out what the bloody hell was going wrong with our server running the helpdesk software (SQL, web based, that sort). Stupid me, I had loaded the patches deemed 'critical' by MS. I unloaded that patch and all was fine. No one believed me when I said it was the culprit. I AM VINDICATED!

That being said, at least the damned thing uninstalled easily.

My Experience with 3 PCs and 1 VM (1)

cyclocommuter (762131) | more than 7 years ago | (#19849357)

The patches were applied on 3 of the PCs I use and on 1 Virtual Machine (all running XP PRO) running a combination of .NET framework 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. I noticed it took a while for .NET to be updated (especially on the VM) but that was it. I did not notice 100% CPU utilization even on my single core, non hyperthreaded office machine which I use for Visual Studio 2005 development. Overall, no problems with the patches here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>