Windows

Prerequisite Vista SP1 update pulled

In response to reports of endlessly rebooting PCs flooding support newsgroups, Microsoft has pulled an update designed to prep Vista for Service Pack 1. This pair of prerequisite files modify Vista’s install components.

In response to reports of endlessly rebooting PCs flooding support newsgroups, Microsoft has pulled an update designed to prep Vista for Service Pack 1. This pair of prerequisite files modify Vista’s install components.

From ComputerWorld:

According to [Nick] White [Vista program manager], Update 937287 was the cause of the problem. In a support document, Microsoft describes that update as one for Vista's installation software, "the component that handles the installation and the removal of software updates, language packs, optional Windows features, and service packs." Along with a companion update pushed to users starting Feb. 12 and another that was offered to machines running Vista Ultimate and Vista Business in January, the guilty update is required before Vista can be upgraded to Service Pack 1 (SP1).

Shortly after the two prerequisites hit Windows Update last week, users began reporting problems on Microsoft's support newsgroups. Most said that the update hung as the message "Configuring Updates Step 3 of 3 -- 0% Complete" appeared on the screen. When users rebooted hoping to clear the error, their PCs went into an endless cycle of reboots. A smaller number of users said that their computers refused to boot normally.

Some users have been able to regain control by booting from a Vista install DVD and selecting the "Restore from a previous restore point" option.

While the problem is being reported as new, testers of the Vista SP1 release candidate containing the prerequisite files have been reporting the endless reboot issue since Dec. 13.

It is not yet known if this will delay the mid-March release of SP1. Currently, only beta testers, Volume Licensing customers, subscribers to TechNet Plus, and the Microsoft Developer Network have been able to download the service pack.

Many people are not planning to move to Vista until the release of SP1. Does this make you less likely to use SP1 as a benchmark to switch? Does it make you a bit leery of Automatic Updates altogether?

More information:

[Vista] Rebooting at “configuring updates 3 of 3. 0% complete (Microsoft TechNet)

Windows Vista Team Blog: Update on Windows Vista SP1 Prerequisite KB937287 (Microsoft Vista Blog)

24 comments
jdclifford
jdclifford

Installed SP1 (using windows update) on my Dell XPS M1210 (VISTA OEM) last week. No problems. jdclifford

BBPellet
BBPellet

Well I won't be switching from XP any time soon, maybe after SP2 or when apps stop supporting XP

burkew0@comcast.net
burkew0@comcast.net

What will MS do for the poor folks whose machines are in endless boot ?

Tig2
Tig2

The only fix has been to restore from a prior restore point or to wipe and reload. For machines that have been affected, that is the only thing that has worked although one of the MSFT developer people is asking folks to send log files to him. The problem as I see it is that you wouldn't be able to get at those files if the machine can't be booted properly. Check out the Vista blog link. There are some pretty irritated people out there.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

Yes, those magical things. Yes, I think that most people have a general knowledge of how to set auto-everything, but never realize that it 'may' have a problem on their system setup. Of course these are also often the people who think that all HDD's last forever and if they do not, it is the fault of the system builders. Of course (again) these are often the same ones who do not back up teir system because it should have 'automatically' and 'magically' backed it up for them whenever they turned off their system. :^0

seanferd
seanferd

I would swear that for as many people who would be uncomfortable doing a reinstall, there is an equal number of people who have no comprehension of system restore. Either they can't manage to use it, or they play around with it without thinking, negating any possible fix it could provide; or they just think it is magic. Just like the magic auto-updates. Yay!

The Scummy One
The Scummy One

however, if it were me I would re-install. But then again, I have the knowledge for it, as many people do not. If it happened again after a re-install, I would likely change platforms as well. However, for my own plans, this is already happening...

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

to switch to Vista, but I did have to install it on my lap top to fix a few issues between Vista and our network. Now that's over, I can put XP back on. I never activated Vista, since I knew it was transient. I am very underwhelmed by Vista performance. I have an old game I like to play, that while nor overly video card intensive, will work a processor. The game played smoother on my laptop, with its dual core cpu, then it did on my desktop (first gen amd64 3000). After putting Vista on the laptop, I had to turn all textures and detail to low, on XP it ran smoothly with all on high. Thats a huge performance hit for an OS, and MS wanted the gamer market.... (all drivers latest from laptop manf site). As for SP1, I have ran all updates that were available as of 2/11/08 through 2/16/08. And while performance is less then I could want, I have not experienced any problems as a result of Vista Updates.

Fregeus
Fregeus

OS X is looking better and better.... Or maybe I'll just upgrade my PC right now in order to still get XP. TCB

fatsavage
fatsavage

I have two legacy machines running Windows ME that are very stable and never need to be updated as they are off line. This is despite the fact that they are slammed with near daily power outages. Go Figure, trying to keep Vista stable is almost a full time job.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

DISCLAIMER: I am not a MS advocate in anyway, in fact I fought against the MS machine for years as a Netware admin, watching MS TRY to recreate what Novell had been doing, though rather poorly. I have only seen one maybe two issues with using Vista Professional, it's a stable OS, a few hangs with older unsupported but not too problematic software. Other than than, the user side of it FAR surpasses anythign I've seen from MS to date. The indexing and searching is better, Explorer actually has a very useful and quick system of incorporating paths into teh address bars for instantly moving through directories, the security, on my part, is easier, more informative and more stable than when XP came out, though after a few years MS may have patche dteh gaping holes in XP now, again AFTER a few years. I was digging through old articles today and found one where people were laughing at XP as an OS for business, there was NO WAY people would deploy it on a network. It was unstable, buggy and when compared to ME, a couple of very informed and highly respected peers stated how ME was a far better choice than XP at THAT time. SO why is it, now that they FINALLY fixed XP, is everyone saying VISTA is crap now? I think it's one of two things, 1) People are conformists and scared to change or learn somethign different (as is the case with most changes, PC based or not). 2) People simply don't understand VISTA, have little to no experience with it and have become XP gurus due to teh fact that it requried so much attention for many years to keep it secure and operational. I am confident that, in less time than XP, VISTA will become the Os of all OS's, as usual. Peopl ewill adopt it, service packs will release to corner those issues that some can't accept etc. But out of the gate, Vista walks all over Xp when it was new.

Tig2
Tig2

I have been very happy with my OS X choice. The beauty of today's computing environment is the wide choice available to both business and home consumers. I think that it is unfortunate that this has happened. It is definitely a kick that Vista did not need.

Tig2
Tig2

Have you made the move to Vista yet? If you have, did you experience a problem with the update that was recently released? Many people decided to wait to upgrade to Vista until SP1 was released. While the original date for that release was mid March, it appears that this issue with the pre-requisite files will need to be fixed before the service pack can be applied. But even that is not known yet. Given the issues, are you going to be more inclined to wait to install the service pack when it becomes available?

Buff Loon
Buff Loon

I will like many Judicious MS clients wait to hear Glowing reports of Vistas Illustrious conquest over the many infestations that plague the OS, before I trust MS and anything it states in its updates or website advisories. Listen and observe, is the public buying Pintos or Mustangs.....why?

fosalfen
fosalfen

Business-Wise - I have decided a year+ ago that we would not be upgrading to Vista at all in the general user population. As far as IT personnel, I let them decide for themselves if they want to use Vista, along with a caveat that (IT-Developers) they would not receive any support whatsoever from the Helpdesk or any IT Infrastructure personnel. They are basically on their own. Personal-Wise: I've been running Vista at work since the last Beta version, thru the RC's and FR's. I also had another tried and true XP Pro system I used in time of utter desperation and frustration. Home Use: Once we received the MSDN Final release (the one prior to the OEM's, etc Jan release) I've been running Vista Ultimate on two of my home systems. (Hold on.....I'll get to SP1 in a moment.) I did very little tweaking of anything on any of the systems in which I had Vista installed until Symantec finally released the Vista version of Backup Exec System Recovery for Desktops so I could make a complete System Drive Image of a Vista system that was running at acceptable standards PRIOR to doing any tweaking, Update Installs, or Security Patches releases. I have never trusted either Windows Update or Microsoft Update, in particular beginning about a year and a half ago. At that time I had one of my Desktop Support Tech's compose an all-inclusive list of every OS release of all types for XP Pro that was ever released from Microsoft since XP was officially released. I also had the Tech include the kb URL for each release, along with hard-copy attached to the All-Inclusive List in order of release date. Out of the three page, single-spaced itemized list, I personally read and reviewed every kb for each release, made some notes, then scheduled a department meeting with all support personnel to discuss each Windows/Microsoft Update release, using the associated kb article(s) Summary explanation, Cause and Resolution sections as a basis to decide if each particular update/hot fix/security patch was actually needed and beneficial for out general user population computer systems. We differentiated between systems permanently attached to our internal LAN (behind two firewalls--BTW XP Firewall and Security Center services we decided early on to set as Disabled), laptop users, and remote users who used their own home system to VPN into our corporate internal LAN. Before I state our findings I would like to point out that up to that point in time we had each system configured to automatically update using Script Logic Desktop Authority, basically pushing out every thing released from Windows/Microsoft Update Service Site. What originally instigated me to begin this whole investigation was due to the fact that every corporate system (servers included) were, over time, running slower and slower, with increasingly longer boot up and shutdown times. I thought this to be a little odd as all our user systems automatically ran the current version of Diskeeper Auto-Protect, as well as doing daily Boot-Time Defrags when the user logged in each morning. (If this is consistently performed on a daily basis no noticeable extension of complete boot up time was noted.) Additionally, all flavors of Temp files were deleted daily (inc. IE v.x) and chkdsk was run on each drive daily prior to the daily Boot-Time Defrag of each drive. As I stated earlier we had noted drastically increasing boot and shutdown times on EVERY computer system Corporate-Wide. With this knowledge, I determined that this was a very important issue that was costing the company money, ultimately all-combined, to find the root cause of the degradation of each computer system internally. Our conclusion was that out of the total (at that time) of a little over 100 OS changes from Microsoft, only five were of utmost importance and of high priority. Ten were marginal depending on the user/system primary function. The remainder, including most ALL security patches, was totally useless to the systems in our environment, and was entirely not needed. With this knowledge I had one of my Desktop support Tech's to take a clean system, install XP Pro/SP1 embedded in the install, install all normal corporately used applications, including Office 2003 (with Outlook 03), etc. He then made the appropriate configuration changes following a standard corporate desktop/laptop configuration checklist. He ran chkdsk and Diskeeper after each install as required in the aforementioned installation document. The five updates we ultimately decided were mandatory for our systems were then installed chkdsk and defrag ran. Using a Performance Benchmark based on an average of the current state of all our user systems, this new system was lightning fast. Our conclusion is that the Server NOS's and the user OS's had become hopelessly bloated and out of sync internally to the OS due to the installation of the 95+ unneeded OS changes brought on by Windows/Microsoft Update recommendations. Needless to say we began to closely scrutinize each release from Microsoft and recreated system hard drive images that mirrored the test system with only what we determined to be mandititory updates from Microsoft. Once all user computer systems had been reimaged, our User population was the happiest of any group I have ever been responsible for keeping happy. Now for Vista SP1/RC1 and the required "pre" install updates. On my two home systems I first created system Drive Images of each using BESR for Vista, but was able to get the pre-requisites installed on only one system after a day of hacking, constant rebooting, etc. the following day I was able to install SP1/Rc1 without any apparent errors. (BTW-The install took an extremely long time to complete). This system ran fine and I actually noticed a VERY small increase in boot up and shutdown time. Any improvement would be great as each Vista Ultimate system typically takes 5-8 minutes to shutdown then another 4-8 minutes to boot up entirely. All was fine for two days...... The third day after the apparent successful installation of Vista SP1/RC1, I ran chkdsk/f on the C:\ System Drive. The chkdsk utility ran almost to completion then the system Blue Screened, telling me to use the Vista Install DVD to run a Boot repair. I did that, it found several errors that were reported to have been fixed, however the system still blue-screened on boot. I hacked on this for a few hours, unable to get it resolved and the system booted. At that point I re-imaged the system with the image made prior to any of the Microsoft required "pre' install updates and the Sp1/RC1 install. My decision was to let sleeping dogs lie and I have not attempted to try it again on either of my home systems. I directed my Support people NOT to ever bother with any of it due to the total amount of wasted time and the unsuccessful outcome. To summarize, in my opinion, the Windows/Microsoft Update site is designed for home user idiots that probably don't even know where the oil dip stick is in their automobile. I will NOT install SP1 Final Release until I can read about al the fallout and decide if it is even worth it. In the meantime I'm patiently waiting for Vista ME to GO AWAY! My next home system(s) will be Mac?s from this point forward...... :-) SERIOUSLY. Regards, Forrest Salfen, MCP IT Infrastructure Director

fosalfen
fosalfen

Business-Wise - I have decided a year+ ago that we would not be upgrading to Vista at all in the general user population. As far as IT personnel, I let them decide for themselves if they wnat to use Vista, along with a caveot that (IT-Developers) they would not receive any support whatsoever from the Helpdesk or any IT Infrastructure personnel. They are basically on their own. Personal-Wise: I've been running Vista at work since the last Beta version, thru the RC's and FR's. I also had another tried and true XP Pro system I used in time of utter desperation and frustration. Home Use: Once we received the MSDN Final release (the one prior to the OEM's, etc Jan release) I've been running Vista Ultimate on two of my home systems. (Hold on.....I'll get to SP1 in a moment.) I did very little tweaking of anything on any of the systems in which I had Vista installed until Symantec finally released the Vista version of BackupExec System Recovery for Desktops so I could make a complete System Drive Image of a Vista system that was running at acceptible standards PRIOR to doing any tweaking, Update Installs, or Security Patches releases. I have never trusted either Windows Update or Microsoft Update, inparticular beginning about a year and a half ago. At that time I had one of my Desktop Support Tech's compose an all-inclusive list of every OS release of all types for XP Pro that was ever released from Microsoft since XP was officially released. I also had the Tech include the kb URL for each release, along with hard-copy attached to the All-Inclusive List in order of release date. Out of the three page, single-spaced itemized list, I personally read and reviewed every kb for each release, made some notes, then scheduled a department meeting with all support personnel to discuss each Windows/Microsoft Update release, using the associated kb article(s) Summary explaination, Cause and Resolution sections as a a basis to decide if each particular update/hotfix/security patch was actually needed and beneficial for out general user population computer systems. We differenciated between systems permanently attached to our internal LAN (behind two firewalls--BTW XP Firewall and Security Center services we decided early on to set as Disabled), laptop users, and remote users who used their own home system to VPN into our corporate internal LAN. Before I stae our findings i would like to point out that up to that point in time we had each system configured to automatically Update using Script Logic Desktop Authority, basically pushing out every thing released from Windows/Microsoft Update Service Site. What originally instigated me to begin this whole investigation was due to the fact that every corporate system (servers included) were, over time, running slower and slower, with increasingly longer bootup and shutdown times. I thought this to be a little odd as all our user systems automatically ran the current version of Diskeeper Auto-Protect, as well as doing daily Boot-Time Defrags when the user logged in each morning. (If this is consistantly performed on a daily basis no noticible extension of complete bootup time was noted.) Additionally, all flavors of Temp files were deleted daily (inc. IE v.x) and chkdsk was run on each drive daily prior to the daily Boot-Time Defrag of each drive. As I stated earlier we had noted drastically increasing boot and shutdown times on EVERY computer system Corporate-Wide. With this knowledge, I determinded that this was a very important issue that was costing the company money, ultimately all-combined, to find the root cause of the degragation of each computer system internally. Our conclusion was that out of the total (at that time) of a little over 100 OS changes from Microsoft, only five were of utmost importance and of high priority. Ten were marginal depending on the user/system primary function. The remainder, including most ALL security patches, were totally useless to the systems in our environment, and were entirely not needed. With this knowledge I had one of my Desktop support Tech's to take a clean system, install XP Pro/SP1 embedded in the install, install all normal corporately used applications, including Office 2003 (with Outlook 03), etc. He then made the appropriate configuration changes following a standard corporate desktop/laptop configuration checklist. He ran chkdsk and Diskeeper after each install as required in the aforementioned installation document. The five updates we ultimately decided were manditory for our systems were then installed, chkdsk and defrag ran. Using a Performance Benchmark based on an average of the current state of all our user systems, this new system was lightning fast. Our conclusion is that the Server NOS's and the user OS's had become hopelessly bloated and out of sync internally to the OS due to the installation of the 95+ unneeded OS changes brought on by Windows/Microsoft Update recommendations. Needless to say we began to closely scrutinize each release from Microsoft and recreated system hard drive images that mirrored the test system with only what we determinded to be mandititory updates from Microsoft. Once all user computer systems had been reimaged, our User population was the happiest of any group I have ever been responcible for keeping happy. Now for Vista SP1/RC1 and the required "pre" install updates. On my two home systems I first created system Drive Images of each using BESR for Vista, but was able to get the pre-requisites installed on only one system after a day of hacking, constant rebooting, etc. the following day I was able to install SP1/Rc1 without any apparant errors. (BTW-The install took an extremely long time to complete). This system ran fine and I actually noticed a VERY small increase in bootup and shutdown time. Any improvement would be great as each Vista Ultimate system typically takes 5-8 minutes to shutdown then another 4-8 minutes to bootup entirely. All was fine for two days...... The third day after the apparant sucessful installation of Vistaw SP1/RC1, I ran chkds/f on the C:\ System Drive. The chkdsk utility ran almost to completion then the system Blue Screened, telling me to use th Vista Install DVD to run a Boot repair. I did that, it found several errors that werer reported to hafve been fixed, however the system still blue-screened on boot. I hacked on this for a few hours, unable to get it resolved and the system booted. At that point I re-imaged the system with the image made prior to any of the Microsoft required "pre' install updates and the Sp1/RC1 install. My dedision was to let sleeping dogs lie and i have not attempted to try it again on either of my home systems. I directed my Suppoort people NOT to ever bother with any of it due to the total amount of wasted time and the unsucessful outcome.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And yet the torrent forums are full of people who were downloading the prequel to SP1 for a good month now. No wonder they have had endless problems, they are installing a botched and unreleased SP over top of a cracked OS. Good luck with that then. :D

eM DuBYaH
eM DuBYaH

I've been testing out Vista on a couple of boxes. I have Vista Enterprise, Business, and Business-N. I installed SP1, had to reboot once on each box, and was done with it. ((chuckle)) Only difference was after the SP install, my Windows Experience rating dropped by 1 tenth on each of the boxes. Well except on Business-N because it says it's missing components necessary to run the Experience Rating tests.

halreads
halreads

SP1 did not address problems customers have restoring a backup from an external hard drive after a system crash. The Vista back up utility does not "see" the backed up files. However, they are visible in the folder "MINWINPC" with an Application file "Backup.1" and Backup.2.fbw The file restore wizard requests: "Please insert the latest disk and continue the restore wizard." No option exists for finding the file on the external hard drive. Needless to say, the cost of losing access to the backed up files can be considerable. To those affected the cost is immense and hostility toward Vista is palpable.

riggle2
riggle2

Keeping all my other machines XP But the laptop I bought with Vista on it so I could support my customers has had auto update issues from the start error coded for a very long time. So I went to the MS downloads and manually updated. Two days ago I was suprised to get 11 updates and this morning stage 3 completed on its own no hitches.....Got a call from customer last week that had the freeze for a day and half I visited today to install new speakers and network was out customer reported since the freeze..rebooted and stage 3 completed and all seemed fine.

normhaga
normhaga

that an inside person at an unnamed MS affiliate partner told me that MS is dropping Vista as soon as Windows 7 is released.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

and thanks for the heads up on that nifty little bit of info. I only hope that the techs and netadmins in our district know this already. Then again, it might be fun to say 'I told you so.' Being a total control freak and 'Windows paranoid' to boot, I don't allow anything to auto update. I have a couple of hours once a week set aside specifically for updating. This includes Windows Update, where I choose the Custom option so that I can pick and choose what I will allow into the machine.

brent.young
brent.young

We're guessing it was a TCP/IP patch, after vista forced the install and reboot on me (we have since turned everything to manual for updates), that caused us to not be able to connect to the default gateway and the internet. Other computers could get to the internet, I could ping the gateway, other computers, browse network shares, but couldn't even connect the the router's web interface. Just an immediate 'page not found' error. Rolled it back and internet restored.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

I was forced to move to Vista, my old laptop died, sniff. Because I haven't found all of the drivers for XP I'm living with Vista. As long as you don't count the virtual machines running PC Linux OS and XP Pro.

Editor's Picks