Apparently there is a problem if you try to update Vista with sp1 and you have a non-vista bootloader in MBR

possible work-a-round re-install Vista bootloader do the sp1 and then re-install grub

http://apcmag.com/vista_sp1_wont_ins..._microsoft.htm

From the article:

If you’re dualbooting Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate alongside a Linux distro, and have installed the Linux bootloader into the MBR, then you’re guaranteed to run into problems when installing Vista Service Pack 1, Microsoft has admitted.

Microsoft has excused itself by saying Vista SP1 contains an update to the BitLocker feature, and replacing the bootloader is a necessary prerequisite...

An SP1 update on my Vista Home Basic produced no bootloader problems.
Apparently nether Home Basic or Home Premium would have problems.
Only distributions...er versions running bitblocker.

How about if you have Vista Ultimate but do not have bitblocker installed?

Read the article again. BTW, this was "stickified" (in General I think) a week or so ago.

READ it again? I QUOTED it. And my Home Basic has no issues yet.
So tell me what I'm missing.

Seems straight-forward enough.

As is requesting clarification on what you are referring to.
I am properly chastised for asking a question on something I missed rather than making points on things I did not then.

BTW. First time I have seen anything of this. Sorry I'm behind the times.

I would make sure to disable bitlocker and then reset/reinstall GRUB or LILO. This took care of it for me.
Vista likes taking over the MBR and can seriously mess with settings.

I run Vista and Linux dual booted. I experienced no difficulties installing SP1 for Vista. I use the Grub boot loader which has never given any trouble with detecting and booting Windows as required.

I think it is important to have your Vista partition up to date and relatively clean. Do a disk check and defrag before installing the SP1.

I think most problems are caused by hboot loaders other than Grub and those people installing SP from a disc and not through Microsoft Update.

Which version of Vista?

What version of Vista? Home Prem.

You may have posted for the same reason I did then.

I am using Home Basic and had no issues and saw a thread titled "Vista SP1 and dual booting issues" when I personally had no problems.

The article specifically singles out Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate due to the BitLocker feature and as pointed out by syg00 it "does not depend on whether BitLocker is active, but rather the host operating system’s capacity for using it."

The information is worth a look by anyone dual booting Linux and Windows Vista.

I have installed Vista Ultimate 32 & 64 bit OS
with Ubuntu (using GRUB) and SUSE Linux 10.3 (Grub)
Then added Vista SP1 installing from a file I downloaded
not windows update.

This was done on one VMware machine, and 2 Laptops on the native hardware. All of them still dual boot Linux/Vista with absolutely NO fixes/patches or changes required.

I am not sure what causes the problem with some computers...
These were all relatively fresh installs (within 3 months) Not much has been added to any of the PC's and Bitlocker was NOT enabled on any of them.

Too Confusing in getting it configured lol...

I think it's more M$ FUD, but could be wrong.....


Mark

This is a confusing one. MS admits that Enterprise and Ultimate both perform contingency checks on the MBR. Similar to an md5 checksum. any descrepency is interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as a security breach and things go sour from there. There is supposed to be a work around (white paper) on the TechNet site but I have never been able to find it. I was informed of this at MS Server 2008 training, conducted by MS.

However, I have Ultimate dual booting with Grub (LinuxMINT) and have done for about 8 months. SP1 was installed from DVD about a month ago. No problems at all. I do not use the bitlocker component, but it is installed and I could choose to activate at any time (God knows why...lol)

Question. How many people that have experienced problems have both OS's sharing the same HDD? I dont. Could this be a contributing factor?? Or is this a MS Smoke Screen and the issue is no more prevelant than normal Dual Boot hiccups experienced by those of us that choose to dabble? my HDD arrangement:

HDD0: NTFS (vista Ult)
HDD1: ext3 x2 (linuxMint)
HDD2: NTFS(pagefile and bakup)+ SWAP

I did experience a glitch when trying to roll the MINT install over to openSuSE11 Beta 1. Could only boot into SuSe. But reinstalled MINT to the same destination and all came up rosey. So I dont know if that was a beta peculiaraty or something else...

Digging up a old one...

What I had achieved:
Triple Boot, Windwows Vista, Redhat Enterprise 4, Solaris 10, under Linux Grub
- Vista was installed under a seperate HD

My Current Issue
- Same Setup except with Windows Server 2008 on the same disk

Currently chasing, apcmag.com/the_definitive_dualbooting_guide_linux_vista_and_xp_stepbystep.htm

for a grub-dominated solution, very useful link for multiple windows\linux combinations though

ms stev