A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows Service Pack 2
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sp2 windows update bug?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old August 30th 04, 09:01 AM
Sunny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sp2 windows update bug?


"francis gérard" wrote in message
...
oh btw,

i'll be offline for a couple days, but when i get back, i'll expect you to
have googled-up some good references (know-it-alls tend to do that) to
support your assertions that installing drivers via WU is bad, JJ! ;-}

i didn't bother with google, i simply went straight to the source...
Microsoft's web site.


If it keeps you feeling all warm and fuzzy, keep installing drivers from Win
update.

If you get bored, browse through all the hardware manufacturers sites and
take a few notes on special requirements for most drivers e.g.
Video - "no other programs running", selecting "VGA" etc.
The list goes on..........(like having IE open and running)


Ads
  #77  
Old August 30th 04, 09:04 AM
Sunny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sp2 windows update bug?


"francis gérard" wrote in message
...
JJ, relax man, i'm only giving you a hard-time over MVP thing, cause i

think
the MVP designation is silly, at best. however, i also realize you are a
valuable contributor to these NGs, we simply disagree on this matter


Your point is clear IMHO, "head in sand" ring any bells, or
"The rest of the World is out of step"


  #78  
Old August 30th 04, 09:04 AM
NoNoBadDog!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sp2 windows update bug?

I HAVE read your links and they do not support your claims. I will cite one
example:

To be eligible for delivery through Windows Update, a driver package must
meet the following criteria:

. Compress to a file size of 20 MB or less.

. Pass Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) testing review for the
"Designed for Windows" logo program.

. Use INF-based installation, with:

. A unique and current DriverVer directive in the information
(.inf) files.

. Installation only on specific hardware ID matches with no
known problems.

. No requirements for system restarts or user input during
installation.

The last two requirements definitely limit the ability to
deliver fully functional drivers. The last one really blows your claim out
of the water. You obviously know nothing about compiling and publishing
drivers. Your whole focus throughout this thread has been WHQL
certification, which means absolutely nothing in the real world. It we all
had to sit around and wait for MS to certify drivers and place them in the
WHQL database, we would still be in the stone age.

You cannot seriously maintain that the drivers on WU maintain
all the extended functions, hooks and handles and procedures calls that
dedicated drivers can?

The very link you posted says that drivers submitted must be
baseline and compiled in such a manner that they cannot terminate currently
running processes and substitute new coding for those threads. You have no
concept of writing drivers. There will *NEVER* be a driver posted on WU
that will be the equivalent of a complete package driver (except for perhaps
a simple device like a USB controller or a NIC card). For printers,
scanners, video cards, and other devices that require drivers that can
support all the functions these devices are capable of, are under 20 MB,
cannot causes errors, cannot require a reboot, and cannot require user
intervention...well you do the math.

I sincerely hope you enjoy your vacation. This thread has
grown tiresome, and I have no desire to continue with it.

I hope that someday you can grow and mature to a level that will
allow you to understand that there is no embarrassment in making a mistake.
It is how we learn. The real test of a man is to be able to admit when he
has made a mistake. You have not yet grown to that level.

In closing, I will cite you an example from my personal
experience. On one of my units I am running and ATI AIW 9800 pro. Just the
driver for this card, as posted on the ATI website, is 26 MB. This alone
would fail the requirements from the link that YOU provided. Next comes the
Multimedia Center driver. This download is 32 MB. Again, failure. I wont
even mention the Remote control or the DAO/MDAC update that must be
installed with this package. Had I accepted the drivers for this card from
WU, I could not use the tuner, I could not watch DVD's , I could not use the
supplied remote control..But according to you, there is no difference. I am
glad that I am not depending on you to build a system for me.

Bobby





"francis gérard" wrote in message
...

"NoNoBadDog!" mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com wrote in message
...
Frances;

your failure to provide proof of your "published" facts really puts you
in a bad position. Either post your links, or drink a BIG glass of STFU.


i already have... fix your newsreader

--
francis



  #79  
Old August 30th 04, 02:49 PM
Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default updating drivers via WU - the facts


"francis g=E9rard" wrote in message =
...
=20
"Lerner" wrote in message=20
news:NxwYc.265236$gE.241615@pd7tw3no...
Windows Update is HORRIBLE for updating drivers.

NEVER use it... If it says a new driver is available, go to the
manufacturers site and get it.

=20
that's right... hit-n-run with an uninformed opinion and not bother to =


qualify your commentary with actual facts, even anecdotally
=20
i don't suppose you even bothered to follow this discussion thread =

either,=20
or read any of the references i provided for your enlightenment
=20


Here's an example of an update recommended for my video card, and note =
the size, and the dates (the dates are very skewed, and one can be fool =
one into installing it). When I tried this update back in March, it took =
all the functions of my card drivers down to a very basic setup; hell, I =
only had 3 choice for a refresh rate, and no controls, other than a =
basic original windows setup. Here is what it states from WU:

"ATI Technologies, Inc - Video - 128MB DDR ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Date last published: 7/28/2004
Download size: 3.2 MB=20
ATI Technologies Inc. display software update released on December =
12 2003.=20
System Requirements
Recommended CPU: Not specified.
Recommended memory: Not specified.
Recommended hard disk space: Not specified."

Pretty vague huh? Note that it says updated July 28, 2004, but the =
actual file was released Dec 12, 2003, and the size is only 3.2 megs (an =
indicator to me that it is not a total driver setup) and is no better =
than the builtin Windows driver; the newest driver for my card is =
26megs! There have been 4 releases between Dec 2003 and now for my card, =
and all are WHQL certified. (Which I would still use even if they =
weren't WHQL, since ATI makes my card, not MS)

You can post all the links you like, but you'll find you are the =
only one that will tell others to use WU for their hradware driver =
needs, when it shouldn't be the (recommended) source.=20

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After SP2 software will not work Zane Windows Service Pack 2 26 August 18th 04 01:26 AM
Critical Updates listed as Not passing Logo Cert. David Nazzaro Performance and Maintainance of XP 2 July 29th 04 03:23 AM
Windows Update reinstsall? Mille General XP issues or comments 2 July 24th 04 12:14 AM
Windows Update reinstsall? Mille General XP issues or comments 1 July 23rd 04 10:54 PM
Windows Update reinstsall? Mille General XP issues or comments 1 July 23rd 04 08:21 PM






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.