Why you can't have Vista SP1 yet: Microsoft fixing driver problem

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

February 11, 2008, 3:58 PM

Despite being released to manufacturing last week, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is not being made available to all customers because Microsoft is trying to resolve an issue in which hardware devices may stop functioning after SP1 is installed.

Apparently, there is a problem that can occur when the operating system re-installs drivers after SP1 is loaded onto a system. Microsoft says the drivers themselves are not at fault, but ostensibly because Vista SP1 is already finalized, the company has opted to work with hardware manufacturers to implement fixes.

Microsoft corporate vice president Mike Nash clarified the Redmond company's position in a blog posting Monday. "We are working with the manufacturers of these devices to get the drivers and their install programs updated, and also working on other solutions we can use to ensure a smooth customer experience when updating to SP1 over Windows Update," he wrote.

According to Microsoft, the problem affects only a "small set" of hardware device drivers, but that could still involve millions of customers.

Nash said Microsoft actually knew of the issue before releasing the final version of Vista SP1, and that beta testers were able to work around it by uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers on their own. Microsoft doesn't expect normal consumers to do this, of course, which is why it's working with manufacturers on changing the drivers instead.

It's not clear why Microsoft didn't give driver manufacturers advance notice of the required changes, nor why the problem wasn't simply fixed in the service pack.

Regardless of the issue, beta testers for SP1 were given access to the RTM code late Friday. At the end of this week, Microsoft's Volume Licensing Customers will receive SP1. MSDN and TechNet Plus subscribers will be able to download the update by the end of the month, Microsoft says.

So when will you be able to download Windows Vista SP1? Microsoft has currently scheduled a public release for mid-March. This will give the company time to work through the driver issue without updating the SP1 code.

"We do not plan to make any changes to the SP1 code prior to public availability," concluded Nash. "We are confident in the quality of Windows Vista SP1 and know that it will help improve our customers' experiences with Windows Vista."

Add a Comment (46 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Program86

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 2:16 PM

lol!

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Feb 12, 2008 - 11:15 AM

"Despite being released to manufacturing last week, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is not being made available to all customers because Microsoft is trying to resolve an issue in which hardware devices may stop functioning after SP1 is installed."

roflmao. OMG you have no idea just how funny that paragraph is. Ha ha ha. lol

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 8:50 PM

You're right... apparently I don't.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 4:29 PM

If that's all you read, sure.

If you actually had a clue, it would make sense.

I guess we all can't be held to such a standard...

Score: 0

By Lawrence01

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 11:03 AM

Many people have no CHOICE when it comes to getting something like a laptop from a local store. My boss couldn't find a local laptop with XP, so he was forced to buy a Vista installed machine, and now gets to buy a second copy of windows so he can remove the offending Vista and put XP on it.

Now Microsoft get rewarded for putting out craptastic software by selling 2 copies of windows.

(On a brand-new compaq with core 2 duo, and 2GB ram, its is dog slow under Vista, and it has never been connected to the internet.)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 3:38 PM

(On a brand-new compaq with core 2 duo, and 2GB ram, its is dog slow under Vista, and it has never been connected to the internet.)

There are literally thousands of reasons this could be the case, and just because so many people have been complaining about Vista's speed does not mean that is the reason for its slowness.

I've seen a relatively fast Vista build with just 512MB of PC2100 RAM before.

I've seen a slow OOB build with 4GB of RAM also.

Compaq and HP PC's tend to be slower OOB from stores due to the large amount of background tasks beyond just the programs, such as compaq-specific drivers and such. Same with many sony vaios and a handful of Dells. Business machines ordered from the web are much faster generally.

Yes, that's not a local store, but that is exactly why it's generally better not to buy from local stores. Especially computers for business use.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 9:01 PM

I agree with that entire comment completely.

I used to marvel at the widely varying negative responses from those who complained about the speed of Vista, many of them with PCs of considerably higher potential performance than my own.

I will always build my own PCs, and have complete control over how the OS is installed and what gets installed with it. My rig runs Vista very well, at the same noticeable performance level as it did with XP... 32- or 64-bit versions.

I used to find myself dual-booting between XP and Vista for the past year, but only recently moved to Vista exclusively on my main PC. I finally see no reason to cling to XP anymore, as Vista has proven itself to me during that time.

Score: 0

By burfadel

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 7:31 AM

The most frustrating thing is that the second sp1 is released officially, there will have to be other updates available for those changes since sp1. Just means an additional reboot cycle or two!

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 9:55 AM

MS is releasing an update today that will lessen the burden of reboots. Also note any patches you install now will apply towards the SP install later.

Install patches now reboot

Install fewer patches later, reboot.

The SP install looks to take between 40-60 minutes per machine. Quite annoying, and really kills MS's claim of smaller "TCO." However, this SP will make the applying of future updates much more seamless.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 6:57 AM

I think its stupid that one has to uninstall beta & RC versions of SP1 in order to upgrade to the final RTM. Beta testing would be a lot more productive/efficient if you didn't have to do a 20 minute f*cking uninstall of a big'ol service pack to upgrade to the next bigfixed version of it........ Oh well 20 years later still the same old microcrap.

Score: 0

By pipdipchip

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 10:23 PM

I've installed SP1 RTM on my laptop. It's running great. I mean, it's not exactly a huge upgrade but I really like the improved network speed.

Score: 0

By Point Zero

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 10:45 PM

It's all inbetween your ears man, the whole microsoft ratatouille is....

Score: 0

By dougau

edited Feb 11, 2008 - 10:04 PM

It seems strange that the beta of SP1 was so easy to get and now Microsoft is holding back its apparently not ready for prime time update (for whatever reason) to its crappy operating system. Now onto the real news, Windows XP SP3!!

Score: 0

By mj132

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 7:44 AM

Why does that seem strange? MS has no real obligation (nor liability) if a beta version screws up your system and beta testers (or adventurous downloaders) know that. But when you release it as an official version, it's got to work.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 9:58 PM

I've loaded SP1 into my desktop and laptop and I have no issues. Will I b**** if both systems crash and burn? Of course not ... since I didn't get SP1 through official channels. I only hope that others who install it understand the risks - which, by the way pans out to either uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers OR if USB, unplugging and then plugging it back in. No big deal either way.

Score: 0

By Point Zero

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 9:26 PM

Let the BSOD's begin !

Score: 0

By easson

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 8:28 PM

The headline is wrong.

If you read the article properly, you see that Micrsoft is not fixing any drivers. It is trying to persuade various driver manufacturers to re-write the installation software for their drivers, to the standards used by everybody else. These standards for re-installation of drivers were posted by Microsoft many years ago.

There are always a few laggards who don't do thing the way they are supposed to.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 3:42 PM

It is trying to persuade various driver manufacturers to re-write the installation software for their drivers, to the standards used by everybody else. These standards for re-installation of drivers were posted by Microsoft many years ago.

FINALLY someone who understands!

It isn't Microsoft that is screwing up with their service packs, it's software and driver mfrs who refuse to update their software. That was the cause of most if not every XP SP2 complaint back in 2004. Even HP refused to update one of their softwares until 6 months after IE7 broke it. They had ample time to fix it before hand but they were laggards.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 9:04 PM

Ahh, are you referring to HP Director? I remember plenty of customers complaining about that one, and it took me a while to figure out that IE7 was the cause.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

edited Feb 11, 2008 - 7:32 PM

I got Asus motherboard with Realtec sound (on board), the sound drivers work.

But every so often the Realtec drivers vanish, leaving only the HD Audio (Digital)

Its annoying to have to keep reinstalling.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 7:54 PM

I had a similar problem. One day I got "the sound device has failed" message in the taskbar, and I could hear static noise. I just disabled onboard and got a cheapo creative card and it's been fine ever since.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 7:55 PM

Im having a problem where everytime i turn my computer on, the speakers are automatically muted.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 12:08 AM

That is odd. My Creative X-Fi ExtremeMusic card with the latest beta drivers caused static on the startup music for a short while, then seemed to clear up the next day.

On the plus side, hardware accelerated audio with ALchemy works like a champ!

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 5:52 PM

One of the offending drivers is for the Microsoft Lifecam 3000

Go figure...

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

edited Feb 11, 2008 - 4:59 PM

Hmmm... this article on the same day that OS X 10.5.2 is released. Two service packs in just under 3 and 1/2 months. OS X is far from perfect but at least Apple can get their service packs out the door.

MS has had years and years to deal with device drivers. I sure hope they get their act together. I don't want to be stuck with OS X or Linux.

The Vista death watch continues.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 12:31 AM

What a skewed perspective you seem to have.

Mac OS X has received more security-related fixes than Vista in the past year.

Perhaps Apple has been releasing so many updates to OS X because it apparently needs to. Leopard upon release was without a doubt the most broken and unfinished version of OS X to date.

Vista has seen its fair share of patches to address performance, reliability, and security concerns. While SP1 will add some nice enhancements, it is far from what I would consider to be a long overdue necessity.

It is not Microsoft's fault if hardware vendors don't get their act together regarding driver issues with Vista... likewise with software developers regarding compatibility patches. They have indeed had plenty of time.

Score: 0

By dkratter

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 6:35 PM

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You'd rather have multiple, frequent service packs instead of less frequent service packs that have had much more testing put into them? Clearly, you don't work for any sort of corporate enterprise.

The Vista death watch continues.

The "death" of Vista will be years after the next version of Windows is several years old, not before. Your opinion on Vista is irrelevant, many millions of copies have been sold and continue to be sold.

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

edited Feb 11, 2008 - 6:53 PM

No, I'm not a corporate cog. Sorry. I'm just a poor slob user who wants his Vista 64bit to stop blue screening because of driver issues.

Yet anyone who thinks that Vista is the success you seem to believe has a poor grasp on reality. And that makes your opinion on Vista as irrelevant as mine.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 7:57 PM

Least you realize your opinion is irrelevent.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 7:32 PM

If selling a mere 100,000,000 copies of Vista in a year is an example of a non-successful product, then you are right - Vista is a complete failure.

Score: 0

By mcooper13

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 8:12 PM

The Patriots went 18-1 this year and were a failure. So it's not hard to see how a high number of copies still leaves Vista a relative failure.

200,0000,000+ computers were sold last year. That means roughly half were sold without Vista. That makes it a flop.

Vista is the most visible sign that Microsoft is in its decline.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 10:11 PM

Even if Vista sold 1 billion out of 1.5 billion, some people would claim it a failure. Not because it is, but because of the whole Anti-MS sentiment. In XPs first 2 years of release, it was also coined a failure...regardless of pushing similar numbers. Vista will be adopted slowly...because of strong anti-piracy stance and secondly because it requires powerful hardware to run like we're used to XP machines running. Eventually though, it will replace XP and the next OS will be a failure in light of Vista, which people will then want to 'downgrade' to as well. It's all in the normal product cycle of MS OS software.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 11:09 PM

At our work we went from NT4-->W2K, and really liked W2K and were reluctant to go to XP only because W2K worked so well. Eventually we relented when XP hit the later stages of SP1 (spyware craziness then.) Now we're on XP SP2 and several non-advertised hotfixes, and in our tests Vista is still not ready for us. Our apps work wonderfully under XP and support costs by all measures are lower than Vista. We don't want to retool for Vista. We'll image our XP machines over to newer hardware at this point rather than go Vista. So from the perspective of Microsoft getting us on their OS migration bandwagon: it's a partial failure.

Also realize a lot of people just get the OS with a new PC. they have no idea about the OS or what they are getting. I'd be curious about surveys for what the public generally thinks about their new computers over the past year.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Feb 12, 2008 - 3:51 PM

We arent moving fully to vista yet cause some genius company that supplies our dictation software decided that joystick drivers would work best for their footpetals. That and their installer is a 16-bit engine. Tells you how much they have updated in the past 12 years...

I've tried to convince management to move to different dictation software for this and many other reasons but they won't. Until the idiots fix the footpetal drivers or we move to another company for our dictation software, we're sticking with XP for the most part. A handful of non-dictaphone (oops...there's the name)users are running vista without significant issues.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 12:16 AM

We've had a few customers who request a downgrade (or upgrade, depending on your point of view) to Windows XP with a new Vista laptop or desktop system.

However, aside from the expected occasional hardware issues, we have seen zero Vista systems in for software-related repairs in the past year.

Vista is a solid OS, and far more secure than anything Microsoft has put out yet... and has had less security-related issues than Mac OS X, as well.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:57 PM

Yes, it's the right thing to do, but oh boy what a goof up by MS. This was a known problem before it was given to manufacturing and should have been addressed by MS not the Driver Manufactures.

Score: 0

By gatonegrosky

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:44 PM

tipical

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:36 PM

This was all mentioned in the blog entry you guys reported on last week...

They are giving the OEMs time to get updated drivers out there.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 7:59 PM

What blog are you talking about?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 4:28 PM

...the one linked to in the article *and* the original BN article on this topic?

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Feb 13, 2008 - 11:44 AM

OH! ok lol.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:01 PM

This makes sense. I for one am glad just because I know there'd be a buttload of whiners come along if it broke their drivers.

I still wish I could download it of course...

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:44 PM

Yah id still download it to lol.

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Feb 11, 2008 - 4:10 PM

It the right thing to do. People always complain that MS doesn't bring things out on time, well look at Vista. I think Vista came out so early because everyone was crying and complaining that it was delayed. People should leave software companies alone and let them bring things out when they feel its right and not because there are a bunch of cry babies that want it out. Then the same cry babies whine when the software isn't finished properly.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 6:36 AM

If people did that it'd end up like Duke Nukem Forever. It's been so long people have forgotten about it and yet it's still not out.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Feb 12, 2008 - 8:15 AM

Ah yes... Duke Nukem Fornever.

Score: 0