Windows Update

Hello,

I use Windows 7 with IE 8.

I have an optional update that reads :
nVidia - Display - NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE nForce 430 of 147 MB

I guess it's an update for the driver of the graphics card.

Should I install it ?

Thank you for your advice.

Jaypie

 

My recollection is you can set up windows update for 3rd party vendors,
i.e. not just Microsoft, hence the notice. However, if you don't trust
it, just go to the Nvidia website and get the update directly.

 

Never get hardware updates from Microsoft. Use them only as a prompt to
visit the hardware maker's own web site to check on which update is
application to YOUR hardware. Microsoft's Windows Update site way too
often mis-detects your hardware and offers the wrong driver. If the
driver's author finds a problem with the program, it takes a long time
for them to get it off the WU site but the change is immediate on their
own web site.

So what isn't working with your current driver/software setup for your
video card? Why are you trying to commit brain surgery on the
hardware-OS interface to fix something that ain't broke? The latest is
NOT necessarily the best. In fact, the latest driver may have bugs in
it that are worse than any in the longer established older version.

 

"VanguardLH" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
jr0e4h$u00$...

Never get hardware updates from Microsoft. Use them only as a prompt to
visit the hardware maker's own web site to check on which update is
application to YOUR hardware. Microsoft's Windows Update site way too
often mis-detects your hardware and offers the wrong driver. If the
driver's author finds a problem with the program, it takes a long time
for them to get it off the WU site but the change is immediate on their
own web site.

So what isn't working with your current driver/software setup for your
video card? Why are you trying to commit brain surgery on the
hardware-OS interface to fix something that ain't broke? The latest is
NOT necessarily the best. In fact, the latest driver may have bugs in
it that are worse than any in the longer established older version.
- - - - - - - - - -

Everything is working very well, I don't see any problem.

So, your good advice is much appreciated.

Thyank you

 

"miso" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
jr0dgg$l6j$...

My recollection is you can set up windows update for 3rd party vendors,
i.e. not just Microsoft, hence the notice. However, if you don't trust
it, just go to the Nvidia website and get the update directly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Right now, the graphics card is working very well, no problem.

So, I will follow your advice.

Thank you

 

That is how I use windows update, i.e. just for notices. It kept trying
to upload a SIIG driver that I knew was a problem, so from that point on
I figured better to avoid their advice. The problem was SIIG made a
device with the same name but two different chipsets. Really stupid in
my opinion, but stuff happens. You have a pile of boxes and worse yet
the expensive to tool plastic case sitting around, and the manufacturer
orphans the chip. So you just make a new version with the same markings.

I have also seen this with Sabrent cards.

 

I still remember the fiasco with the WU site pushing an updated driver
for a Promise controller card (too many years to remember which one it
was). In this case, WU detected the correct hardware (because there
were only a few models all of which were in the same product family and
could use the same driver) and offered the driver that Promise gave to
Microsoft to deliver from the WU site. Turned out there was a defect in
that driver what caused data loss on the connected hard disks and
reported via their forums. Promise immediately removed the driver from
their web site to replace it with a fixed version. I believe this was
over a 2 week period of users issuing reports and Promise fixing their
corruptive driver. Yet it took Promise over 2 MONTHS to get Microsoft
to remove the defective driver from being offered by their WU site. So
Promise users were getting screwed up by a bad driver despite a new and
fixed one was available to anyone that visited the Promise site.

I've even had the WU site detect the WRONG hardware. I had a SCSI
controller which WU detected but offered a driver for the entire family
of products within that line. However, that product family had a split
due to differences in hardware design where one branch required one
driver and the other branch required a different driver and you could
not use one driver from one branch with the hardware in the other
branch. WU didn't understand that subtle difference and would offer the
wrong driver (since more users had the latter hardware design than the
earlier one). WU offered the wrong driver for my Zoom analog data/fax
modem which had 3 different chipsets within the same model number.

WU also offered me the wrong driver for the SATARAID chip on my old Abit
NF7-S v2 motherboard. The result was that after a reboot that the OS
could no longer see any of the SATA-attached hard disks. Luckily I had
an image backup just a day or two before and recovered the state of my
OS partition back to that image and all was working again. Then I went
to the Silicon Image web site to get the correct latest driver.

While hardware drivers are not considered critical updates so they don't
get pushed if you have WU configured for automatic download and install
of updates, many users still visit the WU site to check and get updates.
When they see there is a new driver they figure they just must have it
despite that their hardware is functioning okay. I don't how often the
suggestion is to download and install the latest video card driver to
fix a problem only to have the user encounter different problems, not
resolve their problem (since they didn't check if the later version
actually addressed their problem), or cause even more severe problems.
For example, the latest driver for my old ATI x850 AGP video card is NOT
the best driver. Why? Because newer versions eventually drop support
for older software, so eventually newer versions will no longer support
old games. Only by trial and error of installing through many versions
can you figure out which version is the best for YOUR setup. In my
case, they offered Catalyst 10.2 as the latest version but testing
proved 9.3.1 was the best version for best use with my software. Also,
the full-blown software package included their Catalyst Control Center
which was of no value to me. All I needed was the driver, not the
fluff.

Way too many users update their drivers when nothing is broke. If they
are having a problem with the current version, they don't bother reading
the release notes for the new version to see if it actually addresses
their problem. They are just shotgunning around hoping a change fixes
the problem (without knowing what new problems will occur) and could
make the situation even worse. They also provide no escape route to
recover in case the newer driver makes it impossible to even load the
operating system.

 

They also provide no escape route to

I never used the windows rollback feature, but in theory you could do
that to undo the driver update.

I used to work in modem chip design. All the vendors had multiple
designs ready to fly. They would use this to beat you down on price, or
just change designs if there is a supply problem. In the free market,
this is perfectly legal. I don't think you could even regulate this crap
if you wanted. The chip vendors themselves make minor tweaks to the same
part number.

 

But if the OS won't load, how are you going to use it to run a utility
that it provides?