Windows Vista update 'kills' USB devices

[HEXUS]

Microsoft has admitted it is investigating reports that a recent Windows Vista security update causes havoc with some USB devices, but the software giant is yet to provide a fix for the cock-up.

Read more.

[Lord Midas]

Sheesh. The Microsoft tomfoolery never ends!

I went from XP32 to Vista32 to XP64 to Vista64 adn back to XP64. And until MS can fix their endless issues with Vista then XP is where I'll stay.

So there

[0iD]

I have no problems with Vista x64 &/or my USB devices either before or after SP1 & recent updates.

[Brewster0101]

Sheesh. The Microsoft tomfoolery never ends!

I went from XP32 to Vista32 to XP64 to Vista64 adn back to XP64. And until MS can fix their endless issues with Vista then XP is where I'll stay.

So there

I went from Xp64 to Vista 64 about 3 months ago. Had very few issues. All drivers for Canon printer, Microsoft Webcam and stuff all worked well. SP1 works well, had no problems with recent update to defender.

I do think though that vista does need pruning when installed. Options such as superfetch need turning of. Once you've played with Vista and configured it well, it works well. XP64 was the same.

The only issue I have is transfer files over a network from other computers that aren't vista. This is dam slow and annoying. But a NAS drive will hopefully sort this.

I think Linux really needs to push it way into the commercial market and challenge Windows, before Microsoft actually care about service and getting things right. Until their is competition that will take money from them, they won't improve.

[Blitzen]

I upgraded my main rig and my laptop through Windows Update to SP1 and both are running fine before and after the update.

[this_is_gav]

I do think though that vista does need pruning when installed. Options such as superfetch need turning of. Once you've played with Vista and configured it well, it works well. XP64 was the same.

SuperFetch is the best feature Vista has. It's the sole reason I'm using Vista (other than needing x64 to utilise more than 2gb per process, so needed a new license anyway). What's the point in having all that memory sitting empty? It makes a hell of a difference.

Back on topic, I've no issues with USB devices here either.

[Splash]

Sheesh. The Microsoft tomfoolery never ends!

I went from XP32 to Vista32 to XP64 to Vista64 adn back to XP64. And until MS can fix their endless issues with Vista then XP is where I'll stay.

So there

You prefer XP64? I guess it takes all sorts...

[Agent]

XP64 is no where near as bad as people make out.

I've been messing about with it the last few weeks and by the way people were talking, I was expecting it to be barely functional

Not one driver issue either, but then it is fairly standard hardware.

[Splash]

It's essentially a server OS hacked around to be a workstation OS. I'm guessing you didn't need to install anything that also came in a premium "server" version (AV, disk imaging etc etc)?

Anyhoo, back on topic: no USB issues here either, but then it seems that I've got the one setup that Vista Just Works (tm) on...

[dangel]

Nah, i've got several installs of that Vista Just Works (tm) product you speak of.

Not that some want to hear it..

Sheesh. The Microsoft tomfoolery never ends!

I went from XP32 to Vista32 to XP64 to Vista64 adn back to XP64. And until MS can fix their endless issues with Vista then XP is where I'll stay.

So there

Thank god there's never been a single issue with XP. It was perfect on release and still is! Huzzah!

[Agent]

Ive just had a call of a mate who has been having issues with his MS mouse (the big one with weights in it) playing up. Couldn't figure out what was up with it - fine in other machines, just this one and only that devices - we really thought it was faulty.

Anyway, long story short, it appears that a recent XP update has also caused issues with some USB devices. I don't know if its the same issue, just trying to find out now.
If he rollbacks to before his Windows update, the problem goes. Applies new updates, problem comes back. Annoying.....

[badass]

It's essentially a server OS hacked around to be a workstation OS. I'm guessing you didn't need to install anything that also came in a premium "server" version (AV, disk imaging etc etc)?

Erm what do you think all versions of windows are....
In fact what do you think any modern OS is?

[dangel]

He's right though - XP64 was Windows Server 2003 underneath. It wasn't (absolutely not) WinXP in 64bit drag. Only recently have MS tied the desktop and server lines as tightly as you suggest - with Server 2008 and Vista.

[badass]

He's right though - XP64 was Windows Server 2003 underneath. It wasn't (absolutely not) WinXP in 64bit drag. Only recently have MS tied the desktop and server lines as tightly as you suggest - with Server 2008 and Vista.

He is right, but came across as stating it like its something new ,which it isn't
Windows NT4 server was NT4 workstation with a few server apps for DHCP, WINS etc lumped on. In fact, if you changed a registry key on NT4 WS, the way the OS ran changed to be the same as NT4 server and you could install server apps on it. NT5 (2000) is no different, except there are a lot more server bits added on to the server version, NT5.1 (XP) was only released for the desktop, NT5.2 is the same as NT5.0 - it has a server and a workstation version - they just call the workstation version XP rather than 2003 for marketing purposes.
As said before though, all modern OS's (that run on PC's) are all server OS's bodged to run on the desktop.

[dangel]

As said before though, all modern OS's (that run on PC's) are all server OS's bodged to run on the desktop.

I think I could equally reverse that by the same logic in all honesty. NT5.2 isn't 5.1 - and perhaps that's the relevant difference here - it's a new OS and that's what caused the hassle with 5.2 (versus 5.1) compatibility. Logically, people associate WinXP64 with WinXP and therein lies the problem (and the hassle).

[TheAnimus]

As said before though, all modern OS's (that run on PC's) are all server OS's bodged to run on the desktop.

I'd be tempted to say its the other way round?

Most kernels are designed to allow optomising for certain tasks, extra response can be given to things like the mouse interupts. Apps that are currently running, or still let apps that haven't used much time yet be snappy.

But many OS's didn't really use ideas like pre-emptive multithreading Computer multitasking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the artical is a bit kack, because it should be pointed out linux and mac os finally got there. But this idea is often found more in workstation roles (as server roles are often fairly constant).

Now i'd say that what we have more is a kernel, thats deisgned to be flexible, packaged onto desktops. I wouldn't describe it as a server OS, as many of the designs are for workstation use, or highly flexible server.