The recent Windows XP Service Pack 3 update has left certain AMD-based PCs manufactured by Hewlett-Packard caught in an endless reboot cycle caused by an Intel-specific disk image mistakenly being used with AMD hardware. According to the Microsoft Update Product Team Blog, "The problem is a registry value, present on images created with Intel processors, that causes a driver (intelppm.sys) to load at boot."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.
View: Full Article @ PC World
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guess the MS bashers figure they could use this to poo-poo on them some more.
AMD is fine otherwise. Don't blame them for HP's mistakes.
I agreed with all but the price, with the same price you can build a amd superior to a intel configuration.
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.
No you can't. Intel's cost more (50 bucks) but the preformence is more than double (eg highly noticable)
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
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.
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!
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...
Guess I had the same hardware as the MS testers eh?
When OEM's are the ones to blame, it is really annoying because they don't follow guidelines from microsoft. Simple as that.
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.
HP Fix
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
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.