I have a lot of experience of the many, many bugs of Vista and the
various machines that run it.
Mary Jo Foley is an excellent Microsoft "spotter". Here is her home
page:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/
She says in one of her blogs that Microsoft are anxious to avoid the
"disinformation on the Internet", but are THEMSELVES the source of
that disinformation.
Their "updates" are supposed to meet the special wishes of the
customers. However, I found 42 separate "knowledge bases" (KB) on the
Microsoft site, all aimed at patching some of Microsoft's dud code.
The special wishes of the customers are simply for a system that
WORKS.
Using System Function 66, Subfunction 2, my own machine-code program
for antialiased line-drawing found the file size. There is no other
way. The file-size was wrong. I took a commercial graphics program to
determine the filesize of a BMP file, and it reported that it was
MINUS one BILLION, 285 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND and 262 BYTES. Vista LIED
to the commercial software and to mine.
This shows that the bugs are deep in the BIOS of the Vista operating
system. It is rotten to the CORE.
There is a mathematical concept known as "die Mengenlehre" in German,
translated as "Set Theory" into English. However, it is not theory.
An operating system consists of a huge "set" of subroutines. In Vista,
many are broken. The only solution is to find a "subset" of those
routines, that are NOT broken. Any patch must use the safe subset. You
cannot write massive programs, that rely on the full set - broken and
unbroken - to repair the system.
On the Microsoft site, they offer "Service Pack 1". This takes a
massive 455 megabytes - enough space to contain perhaps ten complete
operating systems. Not only that, it does not load. So it is all in
vain.
Similarly with the "Knowledge Bases". The various KB-numbers for the
"updates" contain such things as an "update that enables future
updates". So Microsoft have discovered that their "updates" do not
work. They should have noticed that BEFORE they launched 42 of them on
the Internet, not AFTER. Indeed, they should TEST their "products".
They should have tested Vista. They should have tested the "updates".
They should test everything.
They are obviously unaware, by analogy, that you cannot use a car
without an engine to drive off to fetch an engine. You cannot use a
car without fuel to drive off to fetch fuel. There is a "set" of vital
parts, like engine and fuel that make the driving possible.
So the "update to enable updates" cannot be an "update". Like Lord
Russell's "set of all sets", which is a "superset", so an "update to
enable updates" has to be a "super-update" that uses only safe
subroutines.
These things announce themselves as "standalone programs". However,
Microsoft has grown so accustomed to writing programs that run UNDER
an operating system that they have lost the plot. An "update" that
runs under a buggy BIOS is not "standalone". Ergo, it is not a "super-
update".
Part of the disinformation Mary-Jo Foley speaks of relates to who's to
BLAME. Here we see the official Microsoft blame-shifting:
http://gizmodo.com/373076/nvidia-responsible-for-nearly-30-of-vista-crashes-in-2007
It is an invidious slander of NVIDIA to say that they are RESPONSIBLE
for 28.8% of all crashes. Just because 28.8% of all video cards are
NVIDIA does not prove that they are GUILTY of the Vista crashes. ONE
HUNDRED PERCENT of all machines showing Vista crashes were running
Vista.
My own experience of Vista on several Dells, each with an NVIDIA card
is that they did indeed crash. However, there was no evidence of a
VIDEO crash.
THE FIRST THING TO DO IS TO DISABLE THE UPDATES.
Several machines I was trying were crashing out of regular programs to
"configure updates". All data that had been entered was lost. They
always hung for a time saying "section 2 of 3, 28% completed" and then
"section 3 of 3, 98% completed". They even claimed to be fetching
"updates" when there was no way whatever that the machine could
contact the Internet. It was totally OFF-LINE.
One of the KB "updates" is said to address an irregularity in the
handling of the "servicing store", which interferes with the
installation of "updates", "Service Packs" and programs.
I take it that the "servicing store" is the modem buffer, with the
pointer set to a special place where the "servicing" data will be
stored. Anyway, if it is not on the Internet it is taking RANDOM BYTES
from the "servicing store" and scattering them around the operating
system. In this way, the number of broken subroutines INCREASES
instead of being reduced.
So the automatic updating system, being flawed, acts as a "Trojan
virus". The original bugs cause the system to corrupt itself further.
The closest I came to a useable operating system was what I got when I
disabled the automatic updates.
However. And here is the joke. For FIVE DAYS after I disabled the
automatic updates, it continued to pretend that it was fetching
updates. Only after five days did it notice. Thereafter, it keeps
sneaking a window into my line-of-sight encouraging me to switch them
back on, or download "updates" manually.
I downloaded many "updates" using XP, into an SD card. I virus-checked
them and tried to run them. NONE WORKED.
So much for Microsoft and its world monopoly of IBM-compatible
systems.
Charles Douglas Wehner
