Warning. Do not install Vista Service Pack 1 on a system which boots with Grub
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Warning. Do not install Vista Service Pack 1 on a system which boots with Grub
A friend who was dual booting Vista and Ubuntu with grub has just told me that he has trashed his Vista system with an attempted installation of service pack 1. He can still boot into Ubuntu but Vista gives the blue screen of death.
So for those of you that are dual-booting and want to keep Vista be warned. Re-install the Vista bootloader before installing the service pack. You can go back to grub later.
Sensible precaution anyway - XP (and Win2K maybe) used to not update service packs if the ntldr code wasn't in the MBR. I just got into the habit of restoring it first then putting grub back later.
Typical M$oft IMHO.
Note this appears to be only an issue for the bitlocker capable versions - "home" users shouldn't be affected.
From what I've read I would have thought Vista SP1 would have simply failed to install, but no damage would have been done (no BSOD). Oh well, I've been wrong before. Happily, the closest I've come to Vista on my own machines is win95!
Very nice, I like it. Good job Bill and Ballmer, no more dual booting Vi$ta, maybe one day they'll make it permanent and irreparable. That makes my day, it really does
Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 04-19-2008 at 11:58 AM.
Following the provided link, I now just get comments to the story rather than the actual story, so I can't check this. (To lazy to go googling for other articles. ) But IIRC, MS Windows Vista Ultimate is affected. I would assume some home users are using that.
And people should note that bitlockeer capable versions are affected. It doesn't matter if you are actually using bitlocker. (Another smooth move from MS!)
In case it's kind of relevent to the thread: Windows XP Pro SP3 installed on dual boot with grub without incident. Though the advice to take precautions in case it didn't is excellent.
Mostlyharmless, correct My xp/intel and sp3 no problems but sp1 vista HOME/amd trashed trashed vista with acpi.sys corrupt.My Gentoo and grub is fine on the amd
regards
peter
Might I suggest a clarification of the title of this post? It's not entirely accurate, given the problem only affects those running Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. For many of us, this just creates unnecessary confusion!
... given the problem only affects those running Vista Business or Vista Ultimate.
That was my understanding from reading the original article(s). But some people on this thread are indicating that there are problems beyond that. For example, look at post #9.
Actually, it might be said that there is "a legitimate security/business reason for" such a check.
Rogue software can try to insert itself at any point, and the bootloader (MBR) is definitely one of those points.
After years of totally-ignoring practical security at a consumer-relations level (while creating a very fine security infrastructure within their operating system... go figger), Microsoft seems to have jumped to "the opposite extreme."
It is actually quite logical for an operating-system to check to see if its initialization-program has been tampered with. Now, I think it's dumb that M$ didn't consider Grub and LILO (since they are perfectly aware of both), but ...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.