Windows 7, Server 2008 'Convenience' update is anything but – it breaks VMware networking VMware is warning administrators to steer clear of an official update for Windows 7 and Server 2008 – after the patch was found to be incompatible with some virtual machines. The virtualization house says that VMs using VMXNet3 virtual NICs are having networking problems after installing the Windows 7 rollup update. VMs …
So... This is a dirty trick? Can't possibly be that they fixed something in the driver model which incidentally broke VMware's driver?
I tried to obtain the SDK for VAAI NAS from VMware. This is probably about 13 pages of PDF when it should have been a simple public REST API. VMware wanted to charge me $5000 and force me to sign an NDA that would not permit me to open source my code. I would have paid $1000 without such a contract. But documentation and header files for 10 functions for $5000 and restrictive terms was thievery.
In case you're not aware, writing a network driver with good performance with the flexibility of VMXNET3 which is not so much a driver as an RPC mechanism to make networking function calls across protection rings takes something of a small miracle to make work if you don't have source access to the kernel of the guest OS. The same is true in reverse. You can't make a change to the kernel of the guest without likely breaking a virtual driver or two.
The end result is, VMware will release a patch within a few days. They just need to boot Windows Server 2008 in Workstation and run their unit tests via Visual Studio and they'll find what changes they have to make and they'll release a new driver ISO.
The real question is... Why hasn't VMware implemented a proper network driver for Windows yet? They still use almost archaic (and SLOW!!!) methods of implementing networking
Don't think its that. The network driver still works, just that after installing the update the network adapter is reinstalled, set to default settings. Leaving the settings for the old adapter in place, for the removed adapter, making that ip address unusable until you remove it from the registry, like you sometime get now with windows, a nic can be removed but its hardware is only hidden and then when you add the same ip to the adapter it says it cant as its in use with another adapter in the computer.
That's my understanding of the problem, not tested as I don't need the update. If you keep you servers and desktop up to date you don't need it.
Home users, they will probably want to use this if reinstalling, but this will then only affect very few people, the ones that would end up knowing this is a problem, people with esxi servers, for example IT admins and developers.
So VMware wouldn't let you use their IP without paying or like every most software vendors charges you for a new version for your new OS, this makes everything bad that happens their fault?
Like you said both parties protect their IP and since it is no longer legal to de-obfuscate it everyone is working in the blind, especially when software vendors charge extra for full documentation..
As to why the VMhost network is slow then if you think about the extra layers of abstraction relative to direct hardware access you know you answer, if you allow VMs direct access to host comms hardware then this is always going to be a way out of the sandbox and will be exploited very quickly. This assuming that you believe that any intel hardware is capable of a true sandbox
Personally I was very dubious of the "windows 7 with all updates" they offered after the release of WinX and what I would say was their move away from professional integrity and protection for their users.
For me anything from MS since WinX is to be inspected for attacks on my privacy and dealt with via a barge pole proxy.
"VMware wanted to charge me $5000 and force me to sign an NDA that would not permit me to open source my code"
These are serious charges, do you have a copy of the actual text of the NDA, where it says you can't publish your own code unless signing a NDA.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm going to propose a new principle called "Fanboi's Razor." It's the opposite of Hanlon's Razor, which states, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Fanboi's Razor would state "Always assume malice when that company you don't like takes an action which would otherwise appear to be caused by stupidity."
I would also accept "Orlowski's Razor" as an homage to his many articles in opposition to Google, Uber, and AirBnB.
'Why was Lotus told that the shell would not be OLE enabled' ref
'As I mentioned on the phone, there are several other ISVs who have very successfully implemented OLE Control Containers, based solely on Kraig Brockschmidt’s sample and accompanying document.' ref
'The purpose of this memo is to revisit the rationale for my proposal of super aggressive pricing action as in integral part of the "Kill Lotus Plan" .. Assuming we would be willing to launch a hostile takeover of Lotus .. Assuming Manzi wants to keep his job, we could probably negotiate a "green mail" price of say $30 per share. .. ' ref
'I'd be glad to help tilt lotus into into the death spiral' ref
the issue with Windows Update on Win7 workstations permanently chewing up a whole core and several gigs of RAM on Windows Update? This is something that's causing me more and more issues and while stopping Windows Update is an easy temporary workaround, it's hardly a permanent fix. :/
They do seem to be quietly working at making Win7 more and more annoying, like you mentioned and I see on mine. Perhaps this is a secondary method - slowly slowly approach - at making people upgrade to "something better"? (Un)fortunately, the single box I'd upgraded to Win10 sits next to a Win7 box. I can have no such illusions that tomorrow will bring a better OS than Win 7. (sigh)
Why would it affect anyone deploying en-masse?
WSUS? WDS Imaging? Slipstreaming?
What are you doing to be deploying plain Windows 7 that then needs all the updates that have been released for it to be applied before you can use it?
Home use, sure. But then how often are you reinstalling (and why?) and I refer you to the Slipstreaming part of the above.
"Remember you did click through that EULA so you really have no complaint as Microsoft products never promise to be fit for purpose or work at all for that matter."
Most of the developed world has a legal thing about unfair contracts. Significant portions of most EULAs are likely to fall foul of that if anyone cares to take it to court over a specific instance. Proper legal advice and a strongly worded letter from your solicitor to MS legal department is likely to result in an out of court settlement since no one in the EULA writing business wants to see them tested in court.
John, you are completely correct though it is odd that you have to agree to onerous terms to get software to run. There is no "I disagree with the illegal clauses but need to run this software button". MS gets to use this as cover unless you have deep pockets for a law suit. So short of suing MS only business pressure will move them and MS has resisted pressure and reason for a long time. Expect broken software if it will force a move to more expensive MS solutions.
Good luck with complaints and law suits. I don't expect much from them as they "own" your machine. In the long run they would be better off treating their customers as valued customers and their customers' machines as belonging to their customers.
well, it's not surprising that their lack of proper testing and staff (read: end-users are the new Q.A. testers) had to backfire at some point.
Consolidate updates into one rollup (not a service pack): ok I guess (except it probably has KB3035583 and a few others in it)
Break people's computers with this difficult-to-rollback-part-of-it update: priceless.
well, for Micro-shaft, it's priceless. Now they can say "SEE you need to upgrade to Win-10-nic"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
