Microsoft Denies Windows 7 "Showstopper Bug" 241
Barence writes "Windows chief Steven Sinofsky has taken the unusual step of responding in the comments of a blog posting that claimed Windows 7 was suffering from a potential 'showstopper bug'. Stories had been sweeping the Internet that using the chkdsk.exe utility on a second hard disk would lead to a massive memory leak bringing the operating system to its knees in seconds. Responding to a blog post titled 'Critical Bug in Windows 7 RTM,' Sinofsky wrote: 'While we appreciate the drama of "critical bug" and then the pickup of "showstopper" that I've seen, we might take a step back and realize that this might not have that defcon level.' He signs off with the words: 'deep breath.'"
Re:RAM optimization (Score:5, Informative)
Optimizations aren't supposed to crash the computer [bluescreenofdeath.org].
The original report I read was full of drama, too much IMHO, and the bug could be fixed in the first service update.
Re:RAM optimization (Score:2, Informative)
According to your link, the bug is already fixed. Apparently an incompatibility with chip set drivers for which new drivers are available that remove the possibility of the crash.
Re:RAM optimization (Score:5, Informative)
Have a read of this: http://www.bluescreenofdeath.org/?p=94#comment-134 [bluescreenofdeath.org]
UPDATE: /r tool is not at fault here. It was simply a chipset controller issue. Please update you chipset drivers to the current driver from your motherboard manufacturer. I did mine, and this fixed the issue. Yes it still uses alot of physical memory, because your checking for physical damage, and errors on the Harddrive your testing. Iâ(TM)m currently completed the chkdsk scan with no BSODâ(TM)s or computer sluggishness. Feel free to do this and try it for yourselves. Again, there is no Bug.
After emailing back and forth with the VP Sinofsky, it was found that the chkdsk
Thanks all.
Re:What about this one? (Score:5, Informative)
Except during the install it says: "the system reserved partition will be installed on the first boot device."
I remember wondering why it was 100MB myself when I saw that.
Nonissue (Score:5, Informative)
If it is really such a serious bug, than it will be fixed with the first installation and following windows update. (or OEM patches).
No sane person runs a vanilla installation of windows.
Actually, in the first months when win 7 gets released, a lot of even more serious bugs will surface (because of the wide exposure). They also will be fixed and integrated in the update service. It's known that the first months of release is always the release test and fix cycle.
This is just how things go.
Disclaimer: I don't like windows, this is just an objective view.
Re:What about this one? (Score:1, Informative)
Everyone who does this often knows to only have one disk installed in the machine when installing windows in order to prevent this from happening. Windows has been doing this for ages. I wish MS would just be up front about this in the installer though.
Re:What about this one? (Score:1, Informative)
This was the same for Vista's boot loader as well and has been well documented. They make it pretty clear what will happen if you try to do what you are doing. Caveat Emptor.
You don't optimize disk utilities that way. (Score:2, Informative)
I really really hate referencing Apple but guess what? Apple does allow insane amounts of caching in fsck_hfs but for some reason (!) it defaults to comical low , something like no cache.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man8/fsck_hfs.8.html [apple.com] (-c argument)
Why? Because system already has disk corruption issue, it could be also related to memory corruption. Also, thing runs on journaled volume with huge help from journal file. One should also admit how clever they hide it from `let me fix a working thing` type of user. Diskutil doesn't have that setting enabled in no kind of form (including hidden pref), plain fsck doesn't have it. It is _only_ fsck_hfs which can be only run giving a direct device name like /dev/disk0s3
On a machine which needs a very fast recovery and HD mechanism was suspicious, I have went up to 4GB. Obviously, it did everything in RAM and machine was 16Gig ECC Quad G5.
Re:Arcane? (Score:2, Informative)
Proper facts please (Score:2, Informative)
I just don't understand why you can't post correct factual posts, is that so hard??
On my machine, with 12GB of memory it uses up 10GB, I still have over 1GB of free memory (10%), the computer is not sluggish and working fine.
If you get an BSOD from this, you should know that it most likely comes from a driver that has not been verfied under low memory scenarios, which is a prerequisit for being WHQL certfied. It is also part of the Driver Verfier supplied by MS.
To me this seems like a good design, if you have surface scanning the HD (like once in a life time) it is very likely that you don't want to do much else with the computer any way.
I will run this on a low end hardware too, as it is a good way to test that your drivers are in order, but it is very likely not at all connected to chkdsk.
Maybe those that experience BSOD, experience them when they play games too? I guess that's the OS fault too.
I guess yesterday when I ran "gmake -j" on a single core SuSe Linux machine, and it entirely stopped responding, I lost med SSH connections and could barely navigate it through the console is a much better option =)
Re:What about this one? (Score:4, Informative)
Windows has never played nice with other operating systems one the same machine. The first rule of multiple-booting has always been "install Windows first".
Well, at least it no longer overwrites GRUB when installing (or at least Win7 RC didn't do that) - while XP always did.
Re:RAM optimization (Score:2, Informative)
People need to stop thinking the crash is only caused by Chkdsk. It's also caused by the built-in disk check utility of Explorer.
Re:Proper facts please (Score:5, Informative)