Latest Windows 11 Cumulative Update Preview Breaks AMD Software Application

[Eigenvektor]

Summary

Latest Windows 11 update breaks custom user settings of AMD's Adrenalin software

 

Quotes

Quote

Microsoft put up the latest Cumulative Update Preview for Windows 11 on Windows Update (retail channel). Referenced in KB5030310, this update to Windows 11 has been found to break the usability of the AMD Software application, or the main control panel utility of AMD Software Adrenalin drivers.

 

The issue isn't super serious, AMD's graphics drivers still work fine, and the Adrenalin control panel is functional, save for the part where custom user settings get reset at every reboot. So if you are a regular graphics card user and leave everything at their default settings, you shouldn't have any issues. But if you are an enthusiast and love to tinker with all of AMD's fancy features like Hyper RX, Anti-Lag, Radeon Boost, or RSR, this problem could be very frustrating to deal with.

 

My thoughts

Good one Microsoft. As if AMD isn't receiving enough flak for having bad drivers and software. I wonder how many people will blame this on AMD at the end of the day. Guess Microsoft doesn't feel the need to test with AMD hardware, even though we're still talking about roughly 20% of Windows users.

 

Sources

• https://www.techpowerup.com/314383/latest-windows-11-cumulative-update-preview-breaks-amd-software-application
• https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-11-latest-cumulative-update-breaks-adrenalin

[emosun]

Me sitting here with a driver from 2021

[jaslion]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

Me sitting here with a driver from 2021

Y'all are in the next decade already? Damn future people

 

For real my vega 56's driver in the tv pc is still the one from 2019

[jaslion]

13 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

I don't know about AMD driver, but it broke Windows explorer for me. When trying to launch it from the taskbar, it doesn't launch, but if I click start menu after that, I get several windows of explorer. Very annoying glitch. Hope they fix it soon.

It also started causing major browser memory leaks in firefox and edge. Someone pushed this thing to live on about a dozen pc's before I saw it and now all the 8gb pc's are not having a good time at all.

 

Good thing for the people is that now management allowed me to upgrade their ram so as of today 32gb of ram is the new standard policy so euh thanks microsoft?

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, Dean0919 said:

Hope this memory leak doesn't happen to me. I have 20 browser profiles opened all the time. Memory leak will definitely ruin everything.

So far it seems the amd laptops and intel iris xe ones are the only ones misbehaving. When youtube or something is running that needs constant video acceleration the memory starts building forever. Which I am now seeing happening quite literally live right next to me. Listening to some music on yt but firefox is already on 4.5 gb and counting after 10 minutes.

 

Whilst my laptop doing the same thing is at 700mb give or take.

 

Normal intel hd ones and nvidia ones are working fine.

[Doobeedoo]

Well, I just did a clean Windows install on a new build fully updated and latest drivers. So default settings, at least no issues like this. Will mess with stuff soon.

[Mark Kaine]

20%? oof. 

 

On 10/4/2023 at 8:56 AM, jaslion said:

So far it seems the amd laptops and intel iris xe ones are the only ones misbehaving. When youtube or something is running that needs constant video acceleration the memory starts building forever. Which I am now seeing happening quite literally live right next to me. Listening to some music on yt but firefox is already on 4.5 gb and counting after 10 minutes.

 

Whilst my laptop doing the same thing is at 700mb give or take.

 

Normal intel hd ones and nvidia ones are working fine.

try ISLC... could help with that (im curious if it does)

[Mark Kaine]

On 10/4/2023 at 8:48 AM, jaslion said:

Y'all are in the next decade already? Damn future people

 

For real my vega 56's driver in the tv pc is still the one from 2019

this is weird one, as much I'd love to stay on the same driver (nvidia) i have to update like at least once a year lol... it doesn't really feel like a compatibility issue, but maybe it is, it just feels like they're breaking for no reason at all though (planned obsolescence?  built in kill switch?)

[porina]

Just saw this. Note it is the Update PREVIEW. You don't normally get it pushed unless you go looking for it. Normal users wont get it. Stick to the full releases.

[LAwLz]

15 hours ago, porina said:

Just saw this. Note it is the Update PREVIEW. You don't normally get it pushed unless you go looking for it. Normal users wont get it. Stick to the full releases.

It's also worth noting that you get "preview updates" by just clicking "check for updates", even if you are in the stable channel.

 

If you click "check for updates" on Windows, Microsoft will treat you like a beta tester even if you never signed up to be one (through something like the Insider program). I don't think that many people realize that the "check for updates" button in Windows basically signs you up to be a beta tester. So if you have ever told someone "make sure you are on the latest version by clicking update", please be aware that you may have caused them to download and install preview updates.

Personally, I think it's a terrible policy Microsoft have. If you are in the stable channel then you shouldn't get preview updates. 

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Personally, I think it's a terrible policy Microsoft have. If you are in the stable channel then you shouldn't get preview updates. 

I think it's more annoying that you can't check and then select the updates you want anymore, what if I only what the security rollup and not the feature rollup?

 

The preview updates aren't really that bad, they are considered production ready but are used to find environment specific issues like this story. It wouldn't be a problem if the above, like it used to work, was a thing and Preview weren't auto selected but available, again like how it used to be.

[jagdtigger]

I wonder if there is an unmarked expenditure in Intel's ledgers....

[porina]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's also worth noting that you get "preview updates" by just clicking "check for updates", even if you are in the stable channel.

I see them if I go to look at updates. I haven't seen them install without user interaction. If you don't manually "check for updates" then I don't believe you will get them installed, which covers most users. Even as an advanced user, I don't manually update unless it is an old system, and usually Windows is fast enough it already started the update process before I even get to that screen. For daily use systems I find it picks up the routine monthly updates on the 2nd Tuesday of each month, in the evening in Europe.

[Needfuldoer]

On 10/4/2023 at 1:17 AM, emosun said:

Me sitting here with a driver from 2021

Hey, if it works fine why mess with it? 

 

This is why my desktop still runs a BIOS from 2018.

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, porina said:

Even as an advanced user, I don't manually update unless it is an old system, and usually Windows is fast enough it already started the update process before I even get to that screen.

I used to manually check for updates on new installs and whenever I wanted to make sure it wouldn't interrupt me with an update later on when I don't want it to. Doesn't mean I want to be a beta tester or get beta updates suggested.

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, porina said:

I see them if I go to look at updates. I haven't seen them install without user interaction. If you don't manually "check for updates" then I don't believe you will get them installed, which covers most users. Even as an advanced user, I don't manually update unless it is an old system, and usually Windows is fast enough it already started the update process before I even get to that screen. For daily use systems I find it picks up the routine monthly updates on the 2nd Tuesday of each month, in the evening in Europe.

Everything you said is true, but I fundamentally disagree with the decision to push preview updates to someone just because they click "check for updates".

Check for updates should be a button that manually triggers the automatic update process, in case you want to ensure you got the latest updates or because you want to install them now instead of later. It should not be a "sign me up for beta software" button, especially not without any warning or clear information to the user.

I think there are quite a few users who are not aware of this and may have installed preview updates unknowingly.

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think it's more annoying that you can't check and then select the updates you want anymore, what if I only what the security rollup and not the feature rollup?

I've been complaining about that for 8 years now. Such a terrible system. Microsoft has been hell-bent on taking control away from users since the last decade, and I dislike it a lot.

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

The preview updates aren't really that bad, they are considered production ready but are used to find environment specific issues like this story. It wouldn't be a problem if the above, like it used to work, was a thing and Preview weren't auto selected but available, again like how it used to be.

I was going to say "this isn't the first time preview updates have major issues so I think it's a problem", but then I realized the approved updates (non-preview) have had a ton of issues too so I guess it's not really a "preview update" issue.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It should not be a "sign me up for beta software" button, especially not without any warning or clear information to the user.

It's not Beta, it's the actual Windows Update every will get, full production ready, unless there is an issue. That's why it's called preview. Because here's the issue, if you don't push it to some subset of users you'll not find issues and more people will get effected and limiting it to Insider users actually is not sufficient and neither is Microsoft internal testing either.

 

Contrary to popular narrative Microsoft hasn't and never did scale back any Windows Updates testing, they only changed the workflow around how it is done.

 

The issue is primarily, well 100% in my opinion, the removal of being allowed to select which updates to install after scanning (not scan and install all in one button argh) because that doesn't allow Microsoft to categorize Preview Updates as optional anymore since they would and could never get installed with how it is done now.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I was going to say "this isn't the first time preview updates have major issues so I think it's a problem", but then I realized the approved updates (non-preview) have had a ton of issues too so I guess it's not really a "preview update" issue.

Exactly, unless there is an issue the non-Preview update is and will be exactly the same just given a different KB. A lot of them go through almost or entirely unchanged because they are supposed to be fully ready, Microsoft previews them out of caution because not every situation can be found in testing.

 

And I would argue the situation around updates causing problems has not significantly changed since Windows XP, what has changed is more people being willing and able to be vocal about issues. I remember many frequent and significant issues all the way through every Windows OS generation, especially .Net or heaven forbid Windows Update utterly breaking sometimes to near unfixable degree.

 

Microsoft started Preview updates in Windows XP era if I'm not mistaken, if not then it was Vista/Server 2008. Some orgs used the Preview updates for pre-prod update cycle rules, typically I just n-1 production and have dev/test environments applying current month. Each to their own really.

 

I honestly do not envision a time when Windows Updates will ever be issue free where it's a once per year and only small type of affair.

 

Edit:

Call these Beta all you like the simple truth is if it worked how most of you want/say you'd be hit with literally the same problem just now 2 weeks later and now caused like triple the number of people to be effected. Is this actually better?

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Microsoft internal testing

AFAIK they fired the whole testing department so its safe to assume that except for some automated basic boilerplate "testing" they are pretty much pushing out untested alpha releases to insiders and betas to non-insiders.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

AFAIK they fired the whole testing department so its safe to assume that except for some automated basic boilerplate "testing" they are pretty much pushing out untested alpha releases to insiders and betas to non-insiders.

 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Contrary to popular narrative Microsoft hasn't and never did scale back any Windows Updates testing, they only changed the workflow around how it is done.

 

That has been debunked so many times. No they did not fire the team, they moved the majority of the people in to a new differently named organizational unit while also modernizing the workflow for Update testing to be more inline with current industry standards.

 

So no.

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That has been debunked so many times.

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/09/23/former-microsoft-employee-explains-why-bugs-in-windows-updates-increased/


Reality seems to beg to differ. Ever since they sacked the testing team quality is on a downward slope...... I even used the dreaded millenium edition but even that did not wipe files or partitions because of an update just to mention an egregious example of the severe lack of proper testing and QC.

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

https://www.ghacks.net/2019/09/23/former-microsoft-employee-explains-why-bugs-in-windows-updates-increased/


Reality seems to beg to differ. Ever since they sacked the testing team quality is on a downward slope...... I even used the dreaded millenium edition but even that did not wipe files or partitions because of an update just to mention an egregious example of the severe lack of proper testing and QC.

Yes I'm well aware of what he, a former disgruntled employee that is impartial on the matter has said. It's specifically his account and what he said that has been fact checked as not true. 

 

Edit:

For completeness

 

Quote

He lists the following activities in the article:

• Pre-release Validation Program: validates updates before they are made available to "in-market customers". Microsoft aims to catch issues with updates as early as possible.
• Depth Test Pass: automated and manual tests that analyze code change areas to ensure that issues have been fixed and that fixes don't introduce new issues.
• Monthly Test Pass: runs updates on tens of thousands of "diverse devices" to "ensure application and hardware compatibility.
• Windows Insider Program: non-security updates delivered to the Release Preview Ring to get feedback and collect diagnostic data.
• Security Update Validation Program: invitation-only program for "large commercial customers and ISVs" to validate security fixes and identify issues early on.
• Cross-product compatibility tests with other Microsoft teams, e.g. Azure, Office, and SQL Server.
• Live Site Validation Testing: validation that releases are available on Windows Update and successfully downloaded and install on devices running Windows.
• Customer support monitoring.
• Social media and forum monitoring.

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/12/12/microsoft-reveals-how-it-validates-updates-before-release/

 

Quote

Monthly Test Pass: runs updates on tens of thousands of "diverse devices" to "ensure application and hardware compatibility.

Just to really highlight one of the falsehoods that was pushed.

 

Microsoft did not fire their entire test team, that is false. Microsoft did not remove testing on real hardware, that is false. Microsoft didn't do nearly anything that was reported on as what they did. Yes people were effected in the restructure and people did lose their jobs, that is basically the only truthful part of the reporting.

 

And note something very important in the above, security updates are not tested/beta tested or whatever to Windows Insiders. Security updates are sensitive information and contain information that has to go through correct disclosure processes.

[jagdtigger]

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Just to really highlight one of the falsehoods that was pushed.

Well if you still believe whatever they are saying even though all the proof is laid out on news sites about wide-spread and frequent bugs and breakage i think it doesnt worth my time to continue this debate.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Well if you still believe whatever they are saying even though all the proof is laid out on news sites about wide-spread and frequent bugs and breakage i think it doesnt worth my time to continue this debate.

As I said issues are not new, what's new is peoples capability, ability and willingness to complain about them

[da na]

Shitty OS + shitty drivers, we're back to the era of Catalyst on Vista again... 

Can't be too mad. It's a preview after all, but it's not like AMD software is remotely uncommon. MS had to have had some way of testing before rollout to insiders...

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's not Beta, it's the actual Windows Update every will get, full production ready, unless there is an issue. That's why it's called preview. Because here's the issue, if you don't push it to some subset of users you'll not find issues and more people will get effected and limiting it to Insider users actually is not sufficient and neither is Microsoft internal testing either.

Well I mean to an extent they are actually beta's (it's going to ultimately depend on whose definition you go by).

 

At least in the SE classes we always classified any type of release candidate that would be sent out and tested for final bugs/issues, similar to our work we internally called our in house codes betas (despite them being effectively final releases).  If no issues are spotted by the targeted users, we would push it out to everyone (after updating the version number, and nothing else). So I think the MS's preview pretty much fits the definition of what at least many would consider a beta.

 

Now I do agree that MS should be sending them out to sample-sets of computers; as that's the general purpose of the beta programs.

 

I do agree with your earlier comment though, being able to select for security updates is important...but I think there is the general issue of not really pushing fixes for things they break (like sometimes letting it fester until the next set of updates).  The example I can think of is MS borked access once with iirc they made a specific WHERE clause break...went a few months without the fix for that (I was forced to rewrite the SQL statement to not use it).

 

Overall over the years I have gotten the feeling that whoever is overseeing the team meant for desktop windows space since Windows 8 - 11 days is just trying to push projects for the sake of it (instead of thinking about the user).  [Like taskmanager no longer have the highest priority...so if you have a rouge app your task manager will become a pain]