MS update patches patching

Microsoft this week pushed out a patch to resolve a flaw in its patching system. The update resolves a nagging issue that meant some PCs slowed to a crawl when either Microsoft Update or Windows Update carried out scans prior to downloads. Systems of the problem included the process svchost consuming the majority of CPU …

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Patching - Part Deux

the kb article says this is only part one of two fixes to this issue, with part two being released end of June, so there's no guarantee this will fix the problem.

ff microsoft managed to write decent code then there wouldn't be any need for all this constant patching. or if they did decent qa testing there wouldn't be any need for patching patches.

[Milo Tsukroff]

Microsoft ... malformed

John:

Too many words in that last paragraph. It would read better as, "Microsoft-published technology ... was recognised as malformed and therefore potentially harbouring malicious code."

Considering the monthly crop of buffer overrun errors, and the fact that Microsoft has never admitted that it should fix C++ input, IMHO all of Microsoft's technology should be considered suspect. (Even though I have to use it daily.)

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Patching - Part Deux

the kb article says this is only part one of two fixes to this issue, with part two being released end of June, so there's no guarantee this will fix the problem.

if microsoft managed to write decent code then there wouldn't be any need for all this constant patching. or if they did decent qa testing there wouldn't be any need for patching patches.

[Anonymous Coward]

The patch doesn't work

The patch does not fix the 100% CPU issue in svchost.exe - Microsoft have confirmed this.

Microsoft couldn't patch a quilt.

[Chris Matchett]

Doesn't work

Doesn't work. What's the point of part 1 of 2? Just give us the whole thing! My PC is often unusable!

[the Jim bloke]

tinfoil hat time

The evil conspiracy theory says that every time M$ release a new OS, they have to degrade the usability of the previous release to make the new one appear worthwhile.

Expect many more problems

....

Considering Vista, expect many, many, many more problems.

[George Forth]

Proper testing

If Microsoft only tested their software on normal user-spec computers instead of top-of-the-range whizzy machines that only they can afford, then maybe they'd know that the ordinary user on the street gets these problems instead of waiting through months and months and months of complaints and then pretending they only just found out the problem existed!

[Simon Lewis]

It's a pain

I've seen quite a few of these and there seems to be no pattern. Doesn't matter if IE7 is installed or not. It renders the PC unusable in a way that resembles a v.bad spyware infection (but without the pop-ups!). Turning off the automatic updates cures the problem in most cases. The first half of the patch has helped me on 2 machines and done nothing on one more.

[Evil Craig]

Told you so

I submitted this as a WSUS v3 beta bug on 7th Sept 2006.

On 2nd March 2007 it was marked as resolved as "won't fix".

Though, sadly, the full text of the bug description is no longer avilable on their site.

Microsoft Connect: Feedback item 191976, "Client update on XP failing svchost uses 100% CPU" updated

From: [e-mail]

Sent:

Friday, March 02, 2007 11:40:18 PM

To:

<my_email_address>@hotmail.com

The following feedback item you submitted at Microsoft Connect has been updated:

Product/Technology - Windows Server Update Services 3.0 Beta SiteFeedback ID - 191976

Feedback Title - Client update on XP failing svchost uses 100% CPU

The following fields or values changed:

Field Status changed from [Active] to [Resolved]

Field Resolution changed from [Not Set] to [Won't Fix]

To view these changes, click the following link, or paste the link into your web browser:

http://connect.microsoft.com//feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?SiteID=110&FeedbackID=191976

(requires sign-in)

Thanks for using Microsoft Connect!

Regards, The Microsoft Connect Team.

[gerald_309]

Re: MS update patches patching (Unix Certification)

I think the best thing all the previous commenters can do is research. What you are looking for is Unix Certification. In other words I am addressing all the Microsoft cry babies. You can go through all the alternatives of the world and they are not Unix Certified - and Linux OS is one of the biggest raves around and boasting to be in competition with Windows OS and Apple/Mac. What a laugh !

Go Here:

Unix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

The Unix Certification is the yardstick used to measure the reliability of an Operating System.

"Today, in addition to certified Unix systems, Unix-like operating systems such as Linux, Mac OS X and BSD derivatives are commonly encountered."

So that in other words without the blessing of Unix - it is considered an unstable Operating System.

"The network code found in these releases is the ancestor of much TCP/IP network code in use today, including code that was later released in AT&T System V UNIX and early versions of Microsoft Windows."

So, you appear as fools because the Microsoft Windows OS is one of the only ones in the world that is Unix Certified as meaning a real Operating System and not some project of one and is based on the origins of the computer system itself. In other words, if it ain't Microsoft - it's crap. Wonder why only 10 percent of sales go to Apple/Mac ? Now you know. And in other words Microsoft is the best money can buy - how can you argue with Unix Certification ? You can't. So quite being such an ignorant cry baby and quit crying like an idiot in your beer and know that INDEED you do have the best Operating System in the world and that money can buy if you have Windows and if that is not good enough than too bad or create your own - but quite harrassing people with ignorant and what should be libleous statements. Sickening. It is the safest and most stable Operating System in the world and of course Unix Certified.

Your alternative was... ???