Did the ssd firmware cause failures on other OSes? Did it only have failures when formatted as NTFS? A specific partition table? This article really doesn’t explain anything.
The benelux media tweakers.net has tested the failing ssd on linux, and yes it did fail there too. They were saying temperature might have been a factor since in windows the temperatures were higher than linux, but something was off ye.
If this is a case of prerelease firmware being shipped and killing it under load because of temps, thats baaaddd.
The takeaway: Microsoft forced pre-release firmware onto millions of computers.
They’re lucky only a small percentage were damaged tbf.
Edit: on re-readinf I may have parsed this incorrectly
pre-release engineering firmware on certain SSDs, which may have been triggered by the Windows 11 updates.
It may be more like “for some reason some drives have pre-release software and the update… interacts badly with it?”
The takeaway: Microsoft forced pre-release firmware onto millions of computers.
How you read that article and came to that conclusion is beyond me. No, that’s not the takeaway lol. Microsoft didn’t force the pre-release firmware onto people SSD’s.
We don’t actually know that’s the case though.
What’s the other path for this firmware being related to the update?
Maybe I’m missing something
There are a few ways I can think of, such as coming from the factory with en engineering firmware, or a third party (manufacturer) tool pushing the update.
There’s also the question of how M$ would have even got the engineering firmware to begin with. If it did indeed get released through windows update, was it the manufacturer that provided it? M$ can’t really be expected to vet every driver they are provided.
If MS cant be expected to vet every driver they push with their autoupdater they shouldnt push drivers with the same tool that autoupdates their OS. Make one or the other. I see a use for autoupdate only MS products and a triggered updater for drivers that only gets used by the error wizard with a user prompt(whtever they call it) if they want to be able to claim no responsibility
So you’d like to go back to the old days where users install their devices with a third party installer every time they get a new hardware item, require providing drivers during install, and never update those drivers?
Why wouldn’t it be up to the driver provider to vet the drivers being provided?
So the end user is responsible to hunt down the driver publisher? In what way is that better than MS being responsible and they keep the publishers in line before the publishers get access to autoupdater?
About the third party installer, why not use my suggested solution rather than putting words in my mouth? Keep the drivers in a separate MS installer from autoupdates
Error wizard only updates leads us right into issues of insecure drivers being left in place because they aren’t causing errors. Or what if the drivers originally installed were engineering drivers, and an update was to correct them? Never going to hit because it never errored.
The reality is, the current solution works. Is it infallible? No, of course not. But this is like getting mad at FexEx because they didn’t confirm the package Amazon sent you was the actual item you ordered.
There’s a lot of correlation and speculation going on along with deflecting potential liability.
It would seem if you have one of these drives, make sure the firmware is current, and you should be fine. (Prerelease firmware and heavy load seem to be the “triggers”)
If you don’t plan for hard drive failure, you’ll learn that lesson eventually…
According to the Chinese Facebook group PCDIY! . . .
In a Facebook post, group admin Rose Lee said that the issue has been identified and additionally verified by Phison engineers, thereby giving credibility to the claims.
Ah yes the notably stringent testing and analysis of . . . a Chinese Facebook group
and additionally verified by Phison engineers
A random facebook admin says it was verified by Phison engineers, it doesn’t sound like the reporter actually spoke to anyone from Phison
A random Fediverse commenter is claiming that a random facebook admin says it was verified by Phison engineers.
Nothing is real.
That’s why you shouldn’t use it.
Well this will not get many comments lol
That’s always the way. Publish the big splashy allegations of terrible things on the front page, publish the retraction weeks later down in a footnote somewhere deep inside. It’s obvious which gets more views.
And you wasted space with a comment. Hell you wasted the time it takes to read your useless comment.
And now you no longer exist in my world because I block those things that waste our time.
relax its not that deep
If you say so.
The irony of this comment is painful.
I’m not averse to a little hypocrisy
