Microsoft Halts XP SP3 Update to HP PCs Running AMD CPU's
Posted by Steven Parker on 20 May 2008 - 12:30 · 32 comments & 13443 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(9 replies)
#1 Posted by KevinRGood on 20 May 2008 - 12:42
- After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
-
#1.1 Posted by +/ -Razorfold on 20 May 2008 - 12:45
- (KevinRGood said @ #1)After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
This is not Microsoft's fault in any way. They warned HP way back in 2004 that making disc images for Windows on an intel machine and then using that image to put Windows on an AMD machine is a bad idea.
HP disregarded this and continued to do it. So pretty much the blame rests with HP.
A lot of people who beta-test service packs, do slipstream installs, and hence this problem may not have been noticed. Also, a lot of people would have done reinstalls and hence this problem will not exist for them.
Last edited by / -Razorfold on 20 May 2008 - 13:15 -
#1.2 Posted by OPaul on 20 May 2008 - 13:32
- (/ -Razorfold said @ #1.1)(KevinRGood said @ #1)After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
This is not Microsoft's fault in any way. They warned HP way back in 2004 that making disc images for Windows on an intel machine and then using that image to put Windows on an AMD machine is a bad idea.
The Intel images / HP thing is not the only problem people are encountering when updating to SP3 though. For instance, I get no errors, no blue screens and no reboots. My system just locks-up during the boot process after updating. There's a thread on Microsoft's forums full of all kind of issues when upgrading to SP3. Someone at Microsoft's QA department really dropped the ball with this update IMO. -
#1.3 Posted by +/ -Razorfold on 20 May 2008 - 13:39
- (OPaul said @ #1.2)(/ -Razorfold said @ #1.1)(KevinRGood said @ #1)After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
This is not Microsoft's fault in any way. They warned HP way back in 2004 that making disc images for Windows on an intel machine and then using that image to put Windows on an AMD machine is a bad idea.
The Intel images / HP thing is not the only problem people are encountering when updating to SP3 though. For instance, I get no errors, no blue screens and no reboots. My system just locks-up during the boot process after updating. There's a thread on Microsoft's forums full of all kind of issues when upgrading to SP3. Someone at Microsoft's QA department really dropped the ball with this update IMO.
Hm, that could be caused by "updating" to SP3. It is generally adviced to use a slipstream install or theres another way of caching the installer files so they install just before windows loads.
The problem with updating whilst windows is running is that the majority of system files cannot be replaced, and hence copies have to be made. Sometimes this copying process could go wrong, and files could become corrupted, hence preventing the system from running carefully.
But then I am not an expert on Windows, and I declined to test SP3 as I no longer use XP anymore. I was a SP2 and Vista tester and that was the general suggestion, to avoid using windows update to install service packs.
What you could try is if you are able to boot into safe-mode, go to command prompt and type in sfc /scannow, this should find any corrupted files. -
#1.4 Posted by OPaul on 20 May 2008 - 13:50
- (/ -Razorfold said @ #1.3)Hm, that could be caused by "updating" to SP3. It is generally adviced to use a slipstream install or theres another way of caching the installer files so they install just before windows loads.
Really, says who? I don't recall anything from Microsoft saying you should not upgrade to SP3. Upgrading is fully supported and therefor should have been fully tested. It was not. -
#1.5 Posted by testman on 20 May 2008 - 14:44
- (OPaul said @ #1.4)(/ -Razorfold said @ #1.3)Hm, that could be caused by "updating" to SP3. It is generally adviced to use a slipstream install or theres another way of caching the installer files so they install just before windows loads.
Really, says who? I don't recall anything from Microsoft saying you should not upgrade to SP3. Upgrading is fully supported and therefor should have been fully tested. It was not.
It was. However, you can't account for every single scenario or bad practices, as proved by HP (and other OEMs) bad and actively-discouraged-by-Microsoft method of setting up Windows.
At the end of the day, you do something on Windows that Microsoft has stated before they don't support, don't blame them when Windows breaks when being updated. -
#1.6 Posted by OPaul on 20 May 2008 - 14:48
- (testman said @ #1.5)At the end of the day, you do something on Windows that Microsoft has stated before they don't support, don't blame them when Windows breaks when being updated.
Yes, but my point was this HP issue is only ONE of the problems that has been found while attempting to update. How can you say it was fully tested when there are so many problems? And yes, it is the job of any good QA department to do just that, account for every possible scenario. -
#1.7 Posted by testman on 20 May 2008 - 14:55
- (OPaul said @ #1.6)(testman said @ #1.5)At the end of the day, you do something on Windows that Microsoft has stated before they don't support, don't blame them when Windows breaks when being updated.
Yes, but my point was this HP issue is only ONE of the problems that has been found while attempting to update. How can you say it was fully tested when there are so many problems? And yes, it is the job of any good QA department to do just that, account for every possible scenario.
No because considering the thousands upon thousands of different PC configurations, it isn't possible to account for every possible scenario, especially when you have a published schedule to keep. I never said there wouldn't be problems, but the amount of supposed problems are to be expected with something complicated. If there was a significant amount of problems, the SP3 would never have come out. -
#1.8 Posted by shinji257 on 20 May 2008 - 17:01
- (OPaul said @ #1.2)(/ -Razorfold said @ #1.1)(KevinRGood said @ #1)After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
This is not Microsoft's fault in any way. They warned HP way back in 2004 that making disc images for Windows on an intel machine and then using that image to put Windows on an AMD machine is a bad idea.
The Intel images / HP thing is not the only problem people are encountering when updating to SP3 though. For instance, I get no errors, no blue screens and no reboots. My system just locks-up during the boot process after updating. There's a thread on Microsoft's forums full of all kind of issues when upgrading to SP3. Someone at Microsoft's QA department really dropped the ball with this update IMO.
The testing processes was very thorough and it is impossible to test every scenario. When it is finalized and released to the public is the true final test for every product. It just happens that this occurs on a much grander scale. I have had no issues with Service Pack 3. No crashes, blue screens, or any other issue for that matter. -
#1.9 Posted by shinji257 on 20 May 2008 - 17:04
- (/ -Razorfold said @ #1.3)(OPaul said @ #1.2)(/ -Razorfold said @ #1.1)(KevinRGood said @ #1)After all that delays, I thought that the testing for WinXP SP3 was thorough. Guess not! I wonder if they going to come out with a revised WinXP SP3. I think they did revised WinXP SP3 when they had issues running WinXP SP3 with one of their software.
This is not Microsoft's fault in any way. They warned HP way back in 2004 that making disc images for Windows on an intel machine and then using that image to put Windows on an AMD machine is a bad idea.
The Intel images / HP thing is not the only problem people are encountering when updating to SP3 though. For instance, I get no errors, no blue screens and no reboots. My system just locks-up during the boot process after updating. There's a thread on Microsoft's forums full of all kind of issues when upgrading to SP3. Someone at Microsoft's QA department really dropped the ball with this update IMO.
Hm, that could be caused by "updating" to SP3. It is generally adviced to use a slipstream install or theres another way of caching the installer files so they install just before windows loads.
The problem with updating whilst windows is running is that the majority of system files cannot be replaced, and hence copies have to be made. Sometimes this copying process could go wrong, and files could become corrupted, hence preventing the system from running carefully.
But then I am not an expert on Windows, and I declined to test SP3 as I no longer use XP anymore. I was a SP2 and Vista tester and that was the general suggestion, to avoid using windows update to install service packs.
What you could try is if you are able to boot into safe-mode, go to command prompt and type in sfc /scannow, this should find any corrupted files.
You should be able to safely update to Service Pack 3 without having to reinstall. Upgrading to a new OS is where you have issues. Not updating to a Service Pack. Installing Service Pack 3 is no different than installing a security update. The exception is that the impact is greater and it takes longer to process but it isn't installing a new OS by any means. Now then I did download the entire network installer and use that rather than Windows Update so that may be the difference (I never used the windows update route) but I did do an update none the less without any issues.
-
#2 Posted by ir0nw0lf on 20 May 2008 - 13:47
- This is not the fault of Microsoft people! This is because of sloppy work by HP and the lazy arses who rolled up their restore disc images. I've seen this issue before: HP or other machines that had Intel, Nvidia and ATI drivers all loaded from their restore image. It purely smacks of laziness and has zero, zilch, nada to do with Microsoft.
Guess the MS bashers figure they could use this to poo-poo on them some more.
-
#3 Posted by funciona on 20 May 2008 - 15:57
- Another reason why you shouldn't use AMD processors and you should use Intel processors: Better speed, better quality, better compatibilty, and best price for bang.
-
(8 replies)
#4 Posted by funciona on 20 May 2008 - 15:57
- Another reason why you shouldn't use AMD processors and you should use Intel processors: Better speed, better quality, better compatibilty, and best price for bang.
-
#4.1 Posted by Dakkaroth on 20 May 2008 - 16:59
- ...AMD-based PCs manufactured by Hewlett-Packard...
AMD is fine otherwise. Don't blame them for HP's mistakes. -
#4.2 Posted by Magallanes on 20 May 2008 - 17:03
- (funciona said @ #4)Another reason why you shouldn't use AMD processors and you should use Intel processors: Better speed, better quality, better compatibilty, and best price for bang.
I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration. -
#4.3 Posted by shinji257 on 20 May 2008 - 17:07
- (Magallanes said @ #4.2)(funciona said @ #4)Another reason why you shouldn't use AMD processors and you should use Intel processors: Better speed, better quality, better compatibilty, and best price for bang.
I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration.
Not to get into an Intel vs AMD argument here but Intel has better performance per dollar than AMD. Both have their advantages IMO so I don't really side one way or the other. When I got my laptop I was aiming for gaming and needed a fairly cool running system so I sided with Intel for it however I know AMD does well in their areas as well. -
#4.4 Posted by funciona on 20 May 2008 - 19:01
- (Magallanes said @ #4.2)I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration.
No you can't. Intel's cost more (50 bucks) but the preformence is more than double (eg highly noticable) -
#4.5 Posted by Xeta on 20 May 2008 - 19:45
- (funciona said @ #4.4)(Magallanes said @ #4.2)I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration.
No you can't. Intel's cost more (50 bucks) but the preformence is more than double (eg highly noticable)
Where have you been? AMD has almost always had the better price:performance ratio. They may not have had the highest performers, but an AMD chip will beat an equally priced Intel chip almost every time.
Tom's Hardware CPU chart:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-cha...7%2C1272%2C1273 -
#4.6 Posted by Airlink on 21 May 2008 - 00:35
- (Xeta said @ #4.5)(funciona said @ #4.4)(Magallanes said @ #4.2)I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration.
No you can't. Intel's cost more (50 bucks) but the preformence is more than double (eg highly noticable)
Where have you been? AMD has almost always had the better price:performance ratio. They may not have had the highest performers, but an AMD chip will beat an equally priced Intel chip almost every time.
Tom's Hardware CPU chart:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-cha...7%2C1272%2C1273
Well sure, if you want to build a craptasticaly cheap POS box, then by all means use an AMD platform.
If you want to actually have a fast machine, your choices are Core 2, Core 2, Xeon, and Core 2. -
#4.7 Posted by +bryonhowley on 21 May 2008 - 08:15
- Well sure, if you want to build a fantastic fast and cheap box, then use an AMD platform.
If you want to actually have a piece of **** and no money left, your choices are Core 2, Core 2, Xeon, and Core 2.
Post fixed! -
#4.8 Posted by +/ -Razorfold on 21 May 2008 - 09:25
- (bryonhowley said @ #4.7)Well sure, if you want to build a fantastic fast and cheap box, then use an AMD platform.
If you want to actually have a piece of **** and no money left, your choices are Core 2, Core 2, Xeon, and Core 2.
Post fixed!
Lol wtf?
Core 2 duos are like 200usd, quad cores are like 240usd.
Nothing insanely expensive compared to what AMD has to offer.
Considering they give better performance, lower power consumption, and run cooler?
Either way, this isnt a AMD Vs. Intel discussion...
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by YaZoR on 20 May 2008 - 17:40
- Wow, I've installed SP3 on hundreds of workstations (with differing hardware AMD/Intel etc), without one of these BSOD, reboot loop, bootup locking issues.
Guess I had the same hardware as the MS testers eh?
-
#7 Posted by jwjw1 on 20 May 2008 - 22:19
- I quit using HP products...for the mere fact they 'cram' useless junk with their software (bloatware)...install one printer model and end up with all the files for 20 and 'registry' that is mile long with HP entries...so...HP should handle their own demise and quit whining like its Microsofts fault.
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by ajua on 20 May 2008 - 23:12
- Can anyone imagine testing to nearly 100% of existing scenarios? this is impossible to achieve in windows because of the endless computer scenarios out there.
When OEM's are the ones to blame, it is really annoying because they don't follow guidelines from microsoft. Simple as that. -
#9.1 Posted by xSuRgEx on 21 May 2008 - 08:20
- so will the cd that i slipstreamed sp3 into on an intel p4 have errors when installed onto an AMD HP system too ?
-
#9.2 Posted by Zanaffer on 21 May 2008 - 09:08
- (xSuRgEx said @ #9.1)so will the cd that i slipstreamed sp3 into on an intel p4 have errors when installed onto an AMD HP system too ?
No, you slipstreamed a Microsoft-made, unmodified version of Windows. Driver installation takes place manually after that. However, if you burned "restore disks" from an HP computer (which you would not be able to slipstream anyway,) they may be vulnerable to this problem. Basically, if you're installing Windows XP from a single CD, you're probably good. If you're installing it from a set of roughly 7 CDs or 2 DVDs, then you're not good. The problem only occurs with a copy of windows that HP modified.
-
#10 Posted by x_david_x on 21 May 2008 - 15:03
- Heres a link for the fix , it worked for me I installed the patch and then installed SP3 and it worked ( no restarts )
HP Fix
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by +imis on 21 May 2008 - 20:15
- another way to create Microsoft and Intel monopoly.
-
#11.1 Posted by +/ -Razorfold on 22 May 2008 - 11:40
- (imis said @ #11)another way to create Microsoft and Intel monopoly.
Please read the damn article before giving us your opinion.
This has nothing to do with microsoft or intel, this has to do with HP and how stupid they were/are
In order to fix the problem, Microsoft has temporarily blocked these AMD machines from getting the service pack while it cobbles together an alternative update. While some users wait for Microsoft's fix to eventually be released, others have turned to a former Microsoft employee, Jesper Johansson, who coded up a free tool to detect and fix the problem and made it available last Wednesday. Once Johansson's fix has been implemented, users can update their systems to SP3 without any problems.