3D Vision?

[Panic]

Today Windows Update updated my computer. Now when I click on Start I see
(among other programs) a listing for 3D Vision. I don't recall ever seeing
that before. I clicked on it and nothing happens. I entered Windows Help
and entered 3D Vision and none of the 5 hits addressed this item. Anyone
know what it's all about? I have a 2D Sony All in One touch screen desktop
computer VPCL116FX and my system shows Windows 7 Home Premium SP-1.

 

[Jeff Layman]

Today Windows Update updated my computer. Now when I click on Start I see
(among other programs) a listing for 3D Vision. I don't recall ever seeing
that before. I clicked on it and nothing happens. I entered Windows Help
and entered 3D Vision and none of the 5 hits addressed this item. Anyone
know what it's all about? I have a 2D Sony All in One touch screen desktop
computer VPCL116FX and my system shows Windows 7 Home Premium SP-1.

NVidia 3D Vision responsible perhaps?
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/114828

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Today Windows Update updated my computer. Now when I click on Start I see
(among other programs) a listing for 3D Vision. I don't recall ever seeing
that before. I clicked on it and nothing happens. I entered Windows Help
and entered 3D Vision and none of the 5 hits addressed this item. Anyone
know what it's all about? I have a 2D Sony All in One touch screen desktop
computer VPCL116FX and my system shows Windows 7 Home Premium SP-1.

3D Vision is an nVidia thing, not Microsoft.

Beyond that, my experience is reminiscent of yours.

 

[VanguardLH]

Today Windows Update updated my computer. Now when I click on Start I see
(among other programs) a listing for 3D Vision. I don't recall ever seeing
that before. I clicked on it and nothing happens. I entered Windows Help
and entered 3D Vision and none of the 5 hits addressed this item. Anyone
know what it's all about? I have a 2D Sony All in One touch screen desktop
computer VPCL116FX and my system shows Windows 7 Home Premium SP-1.

You chose to include "recommended" and "hardware" updates in the
Windows Update. Why?

Never get hardware updates from Windows Update. Instead decide if you
even need a hardware update. If your hardware is working then you
don't need the update. If the update fixes a problem with your
hardware or adds missing functionality that you actually do miss then
use the Windows Update detection of hardware updates to prompt you to
get them from the manufacturer's web site. Too often the detection in
Windows Update on your hardware is wrong and it suggests a driver that
isn't for YOUR specific hardware but might apply to one of the models
in a family of products from that manufacturer. Windows Update
currently lists 3 hardware updates for my laptop that do NOT apply to
that particular model or the hardware within.

If YOU chose to include "recommended" updates then YOU choose to
include any new softwares that Microsoft wants to push at you. For
Windows XP users, they used recommended updates to push their Desktop
Search (file indexer). For Vista users (and maybe for later
versions), they use recommended updates to push their Bing toolbar.
If you have no intention on installing their recommended *additional*
software then make sure to elect to hide it so it won't show up in
later update checks.

Sometimes you even have to be careful about their list of "critical"
updates as they have included software programs that are not critical
other than to move you to a new program they think is more secure than
one you are already using (like pushing you to a later version of
Internet Explorer); however, immediately after installing this
non-critical "critical" update, another Windows Update check will show
there are lots of updates for that new program, too.

You are expected to review ALL updates that YOU elect to allow. That
means when the list of proposed updates is shown to you that you
actually read through them. That can mean clicking on the info links
to get more info if you don't know what they do. If you chose to have
Windows Update configured on your host to install them automatically
then YOU chose to grant permission to someone else (Microsoft) to
change the state of your host whenever they decide. Whether manually
or automatically permissioned, it's your responsibility regarding the
updating of your host.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html

So was that one of the recommended updates? Was it a hardware update?
Since you already elected to install it, going back to Windows Update
won't show it in the list again but you can look at your update
history to see if it actually showed up because of a Windows Update
installation. Check WU's history to see if that's how you got this
new software. That it showed up about the same time doesn't mean it
actually came from a Windows Update. Maybe you have some nVidia
software configured to perform automatic update checking (and may even
dangerously have it configured to automatically install them, too).

 

[Bob Henson]

You chose to include "recommended" and "hardware" updates in the
Windows Update. Why?

Never get hardware updates from Windows Update. Instead decide if you
even need a hardware update. If your hardware is working then you
don't need the update. If the update fixes a problem with your
hardware or adds missing functionality that you actually do miss then
use the Windows Update detection of hardware updates to prompt you to
get them from the manufacturer's web site. Too often the detection in
Windows Update on your hardware is wrong and it suggests a driver that
isn't for YOUR specific hardware but might apply to one of the models
in a family of products from that manufacturer. Windows Update
currently lists 3 hardware updates for my laptop that do NOT apply to
that particular model or the hardware within.

Echoed here. I was once foolish enough to install a new video update
onto an old laptop. It became so unusable that, after hours of trying,
all I could do was a re-install Windows from the original disk - luckily
there was nothing of value on the laptop, but if there had been the end
result would have been a disaster.

 

[John Williamson]

Echoed here. I was once foolish enough to install a new video update
onto an old laptop. It became so unusable that, after hours of trying,
all I could do was a re-install Windows from the original disk - luckily
there was nothing of value on the laptop, but if there had been the end
result would have been a disaster.

A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your data on
the data partition. System and swapfile on C:\ and data on D:\

 

[Bob Henson]

A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your data on
the data partition. System and swapfile on C:\ and data on D:\

That makes sense. I've never bothered doing it (all my data is well
backed up), but I will keep my data separate on my next computer.
However, there will be another reason for that too, C: will be an SSD.

 

[Jeff Layman]

A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your data on
the data partition. System and swapfile on C:\ and data on D:\

Sorry, but I don't understand the logic here. If the computer is so
unstable that is is unusable, it is just as difficult to get data off a
separate partition as it is off the system partition.

Or, it is just as easy - just boot from a Linux liveCD to copy the data
from any partition to a USB drive or memory stick.

 

[John Williamson]

Sorry, but I don't understand the logic here. If the computer is so
unstable that is is unusable, it is just as difficult to get data off a
separate partition as it is off the system partition.

If the computer is unusable to the point of needing to reinstall the
operating system, if you have data on the system partition, it will get
wiped by the reinstall if you use the normal Windows install, or, horror
of horrors, have to use a maker's restore DVD. If it's on a separate
partition, it will be untouched. For similar reasons, the data on a *nix
system should never held in the / partition (are you listening, Ubuntu?)
but should always be in the /usr or /home tree in a different partition.

Or, it is just as easy - just boot from a Linux liveCD to copy the data
from any partition to a USB drive or memory stick.

If the intention is to restore the computer to working order, it's a lot
simpler if you can just "Format C: /U" or the equivalent in Linux and
reinstall without worrying about backing up and restoring all your data.
It saves me about a day every time I have to reinstall Windows. (I only
have about 400Gig of data, so it's a small problem compared with the
terabytes some of my acquaintances have on their systems.

 

[Ken Blake]

A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your data on
the data partition. System and swapfile on C:\ and data on D:\

I completely disagree. There may be good reasons to partition the way
you describe, but that's not one of them.

The way to protect your data (whether on a laptop or a desktop) is by
backup to external media. If you think it's protected because it's on
a separate partition, you are kidding yourself. You are vulnerable to
simultaneous loss of *all* your partitions to severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, and, *especially* with
laptops, even theft of the computer.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

If the computer is unusable to the point of needing to reinstall the
operating system, if you have data on the system partition, it will get
wiped by the reinstall if you use the normal Windows install, or, horror
of horrors, have to use a maker's restore DVD. If it's on a separate
partition, it will be untouched.

I have always believed that manufacturers' restore DVDs or partitions
restore the drive to its factory state *including* the number of
partitions. I.e., it would destroy the D: partition.

But any time I've used a restore partition or DVD, I only had one user
partition to start with, so I've never actaully tested the above guess


Of course, it would be nice if I were wrong.

 

[Jeff Layman]

I have always believed that manufacturers' restore DVDs or partitions
restore the drive to its factory state *including* the number of
partitions. I.e., it would destroy the D: partition.

I also thought that was the case, but it doesn't seem to be true:
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=81664#p1120129

But any time I've used a restore partition or DVD, I only had one user
partition to start with, so I've never actaully tested the above guess

Of course, it would be nice if I were wrong.

You/we are...

 

[John Williamson]

I have always believed that manufacturers' restore DVDs or partitions
restore the drive to its factory state *including* the number of
partitions. I.e., it would destroy the D: partition.

But any time I've used a restore partition or DVD, I only had one user
partition to start with, so I've never actaully tested the above guess


Of course, it would be nice if I were wrong.

I've got a Toshiba one (For a Satellite U200) that gives me the choice
of installing to the whole drive or the first partition of a split
drive. IIRC, the one for the Compaq Armada did similar.

 

[John Williamson]

I completely disagree. There may be good reasons to partition the way
you describe, but that's not one of them.

The way to protect your data (whether on a laptop or a desktop) is by
backup to external media. If you think it's protected because it's on
a separate partition, you are kidding yourself. You are vulnerable to
simultaneous loss of *all* your partitions to severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, and, *especially* with
laptops, even theft of the computer.

<Yawn> I back it up *as well*, of course, to at least two places, one of
which isn't permanently conected to a computer. One copy is almost
always "off site", too. Either the one I'm working on when I'm out and
about, or the one on a USB stick in the car.

My system seems to work, as I've not lost a byte of data to hardware
failure since about 1984....

I did lose a day's work when some abstrad stole my laptop while I was on
tour a few years ago, though.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, VanguardLH <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

You chose to include "recommended" and "hardware" updates in the
Windows Update. Why?

Never get hardware updates from Windows Update. Instead decide if you
even need a hardware update. If your hardware is working then you []
If YOU chose to include "recommended" updates then YOU choose to
include any new softwares that Microsoft wants to push at you. For []
You are expected to review ALL updates that YOU elect to allow. That []
or automatically permissioned, it's your responsibility regarding the

[]
By 'eck VanguardLH, you don't half belabour the point. FWIW, I agree
with you - hardware "updates" from Windows Update are a bad idea, and
anyone who opts to allow that has themself to blame if (when) it goes
wrong - but you took about 50 lines to say that, with much repetition! A
"VLH rant", as I've come to think of them. (I usually agree with what
you're saying, too!)

 

[Ken Blake]

<Yawn> I back it up *as well*, of course, to at least two places,

Good, glad to hear it. But how do you then rationalize your statement
" A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your
data on the data partition" in response to "luckily there was nothing
of value on the laptop, but if there had been the end result would
have been a disaster."

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I've got a Toshiba one (For a Satellite U200) that gives me the choice
of installing to the whole drive or the first partition of a split
drive. IIRC, the one for the Compaq Armada did similar.

Thanks, John & Jeff.

It *is* sometimes nice to be wrong

 

[John Williamson]

Good, glad to hear it. But how do you then rationalize your statement
" A good reason to partition the HD on a laptop, and keep all your
data on the data partition" in response to "luckily there was nothing
of value on the laptop, but if there had been the end result would
have been a disaster."

Because, if the data had been on the system, or the only, partition, and
the fault was one of software rather than hardware, it would probably
have been hosed by the re-install, while if it is on a seperate
partition, it isn't.

 

[VanguardLH]

Echoed here. I was once foolish enough to install a new video update
onto an old laptop. It became so unusable that, after hours of trying,
all I could do was a re-install Windows from the original disk - luckily
there was nothing of value on the laptop, but if there had been the end
result would have been a disaster.

The problem with releasing hardware drivers through Windows Update is
two-fold: one, the hardware detection mechanism at the WU site isn't
perfect as it may suggest a driver for your hardware that is in a
family of model but that driver really isn't for your particular model
and, two, the new driver introduces new code and obviously that can
introduce new bugs to hardware which is already working with the old
driver. Oh, and three, it can take a couple months for a hardware
vendor to get a wrong driver removed from the WU site. A case for
example was when a Promise driver got released that they soon knew (in
just 3 days) had a major defect that could result in data loss and
file table corruption. Promise could easily and quickly remove the
bad driver from their site (and got it removed in short time from
major download sites) and replace it with a fixed driver. It took
over 2 months for Promise to get Microsoft to remove the bad driver
from the WU site.

Most users that perform driver updates do so for no good reason.
Their hardware is working but, ooh gee, there's a new version so they
just must have it. They don't even check to see if any new
functionality was introduced (that the user noticed was missing
because they wanted that functionality) or if any bugs that were
supposedly fixed actually apply to the user obtaining the new driver
(some drivers work on a family of products and your particular model
might not have the hardware needed for the new functionality in a new
driver). Users that do driver updates typically do so blindly. Then
something breaks, perhaps months later, and they don't tie it in with
their choice to update to a new driver when the old one was working
just fine for months or years before.

Newer isn't always better. It's just always different. Different may
or may not be better.

 

[Ken Blake]

Because, if the data had been on the system, or the only, partition, and
the fault was one of software rather than hardware, it would probably
have been hosed by the re-install, while if it is on a seperate
partition, it isn't.

My point remains: if you have a backup to external media, and don't
rely on a partitioning scheme, it doesn't matter where the fault was;
you would be protected.