EVE-Online Patch Makes XP Unbootable

Nobo writes "CCP's latest major patch to the EVE-Online client, Trinity, comes with an optional DX9-enhanced graphics patch that dramatically improves the visual quality of the in-game graphics through remade models, textures, and HDR. It also has an unfortunate bug: the incredibly stupid choice of boot.ini as a game configuration file, coupled with an errant extra backslash in the installer configuration. The result is that anyone who installs the enhanced graphics patch overwrites the windows XP c:\boot.ini file with the EVE client configuration file, bricking the machine on the next boot. Discussion in a couple of forums threads is becoming understandably heated."

Lemon Party

[Laebshade]

The parent is a Lemon Party link - ingenious.

Bricking?

[interactive_civilian]

Why does the summary say "bricking the machine"? Does the machine become a doorstop that cannot be fixed? Can you not (and this might even be more complicated than necessary, but as a rather inexperienced Windows user, this came to mind first) use a Linux Live CD to boot and edit the necessary files? I DNRTFA, but if it is just an errant backslash, it should be a piece of cake to fix.

Hardly "bricking" IMHO.

Partially correct story

[NATIK]

Everything the newsstory says is correct, but the issue have been fixed and anyone updating now wont get hit by it.

It is still a momumental fuckup though and the one responsible needs to be kicked in the balls for that kind of stupidity.

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[iCEBaLM]

At one point trying to uninstall Final Fantasy XI Online would remove hal32.dll.

It's not bricked!

[wiredog]

Dammit! When did "bricking" expand it's meaning from "unbootable under any conditions due to firmware (such as the BIOS) being improperly overwritten" to "Oops, have to pull out the rescue CD"?

Re:Bricking?

[IceCreamGuy]

You are absolutely correct, you can use a Linux live CD, a BartPE disc, the Windows install disc, whatever you have that can access an NTFS partition. It's a pretty easy procedure, the equivalent of rewriting a grub config file, just need to know the %windir% folder and installed partition. Brick is definitely not an accurate description.

Bricking? BS! More FUD!

[AndyFewt]

I have XP, I installed the patch and I DID NOT get this problem. People claiming it "bricks" their machine are just trying to spread the FUD as its VERY easy to fix with your xp cd (and with zero data loss) - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/330184 [microsoft.com] will show how.

As for why this didnt get caught by QA, they don't reboot their machines. I rarely do either. Plus I expect they have permissions in place to prevent the overwrite. Plus this is the only patch in the thousands of patches they make for the test server which had this problem. Anyone will tell you the odds of a mistake are bigger the longer you go without making one.

Alarmist

[Sobrique]

If you don't install your games to C: you're fine.
If you've got a 'basic' OS install, e.g. C:\WINDOWS and one partition, you're fine - the boostrap loader guesses, flashes up an error, and boots anyway.
It's a bit of a fubar, but hardly the next apocalypse.

Re:How is this possible?

[illumin8]

BRICKING THE PC?

WTF is with you people? Ever since the Apple made iPhones "bricks", this erroneous use of the term has seeped into our technical vocabulary. People, it's not a brick if it's still usable. When a piece of electronics is really bricked, that means that the ROM is in such an unrecoverable state, that it can't even be flashed with a new working ROM, and needs to be either thrown away, or sent to a factory for repair.

Now, the term bricking is being applied to any piece of electronics or computer equipment that won't boot an OS.

It's not bricked if you can just reinstall or repair Windows and have it work again. It's bricked if you flash a bad ROM BIOS image and now you can't even turn the thing on.

Re:Bricking? BS! More FUD!

[Tim C]

Plus I expect they have permissions in place to prevent the overwrite.

If they're not installing stuff as administrator, they should be. If they've modified their machine significantly from what the average gamer would have, they shouldn't have (by which I mean going in and denying even administrator access to system files, for example).

Besides which, another poster claims that the EVE boot.ini file contains specific information about which version of the game you have, and that it's only installed by the Premium version. That sounds like a test case right there - patch the normal version, confirm boot.ini file not present. Patch the Premium version, confirm that it is.

QA *should* have caught this.

Anyone will tell you the odds of a mistake are bigger the longer you go without making one.

That's because most people simply don't understand probability theory. Unless you get complacent and sloppy, the odds should be independent of past successes.

Re:Admin privileges

[Malc]

Get off the let's blame Microsoft bandwagon. This was the installer not the final app. At very least it would have required admin rights to write under "Program Files", because MSFT does enforce security.

"about 80% of the users run with admin privileges on XP, because most apps simply don't work as standard user"

Wrong. I've been logging on to XP as a limited user for years. Most apps work. Some broken apps can be made to work by fiddling with NTFS and registry permissions (hardly ideal, but workable). This isn't MSFT's fault, but sloppy and lazy programming by app developers. I've also been writing my software to MSFT guidelines on this for years too, so see no excuse other people in the industry.

Re:Bricking? BS! More FUD!

[Jason Levine]

Except that:

1 - Many systems don't come with XP CDs anymore. They come with "restoration partitions" that revert the entire system to a default factory state and might incur data loss.

2 - I'd bet that most users wouldn't know how to use their XP CD or restoration partition if they needed to.

So, yes, messing up the OS this bad would be "bricking" the computer for these users. Sure the fix is simple to you and me, but it's horrendously technical to them. This doesn't even get into the fact that these people might now mentally associate installing updates with catastrophic system damage and might even shy away from installing Windows Updates.

Re:They both made errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

EVE runs just fine under a LUA in XP. installing requires admin, but anything after that can be done with a LUA given permissions to the CCP folder.

The boot file information

[TheLuggage2008]

For anyone that did hose their boot.ini file and needs the info, here is a copy of mine:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect

As you can see, an XP Pro install with one HDD; adjust according to your needs.

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[encoderer]

The problem is that your post is gibberish to most users.

For most users their choice is binary:

0. Call the family IT guy (you know, one of us..) and waste our time (as if we don't sit in front of a PC enough..)
1. Call Geeksquad or a similar ripoff-artist and pay $100+ to have them wipe the disk and re-install windows, after stealing all your porn and music

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[TheThiefMaster]

Uninstallers and patches are rarely tested fully. For patches, normally problems stem from the company having only ever tested the clean game at the latest build, or having only tested patching from a clean install of the original retail copy.

Also, this EVE patch wouldn't "brick" an XP SP2 machine that had Windows installed to the primary partition of the primary drive (i.e. most pcs), because Windows XP SP2 will automatically try to boot that if it fails to find boot.ini. Assuming they did test the patch, this would explain why they didn't notice.

Re:(catchy subject)

[COMICAGOGO]

I used to play eve and from what I remember they run two server clusters. One is the test cluster where all the new patches/content/whatever is tested by players and devs before it's added to the regular cluster. So it seems to me that the bug must have been added to the new patch after testing was done. The test server was populated by mostly hard core/ tech savvy eve fans who's main goal in life was to be the first to report any and all bugs, so I can't imagine something like this making it far on the test cluster.

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[Macthorpe]

Half-Life 1 had an issue similar to this.

If you installed Half-Life to any folder other than the default ('C:\Sierra\HalfLife\' if I'm not mistaken), uninstalling would remove the Half-Life folder and the folder directly above it in the tree.

So, if you installed it to C:\HL\, you kissed goodbye to a good chunk of your C drive when you uninstalled it.

Fixed in the first patch, but still cause for enough annoyance.

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[Glowing-Wind]

Recovery mode from a Windows XP CD isn't even needed; just boot from cd a utility that can edit the boot.ini directly from linux or freedos. http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/ [ultimatebootcd.com] is your friend.

Summary innaccurate/sensational

[Thaelon]

The result is that anyone who installs the enhanced graphics patch overwrites the windows XP c:\boot.ini file with the EVE client configuration file, bricking the machine on the next boot. Discussion in a couple of forums threads is becoming understandably heated.

This is inaccurate/sensational. I use Windows XP. I play EVE. Last night I installed the "Premium" graphics update and was not affected. The reason seems to be because I have EVE installed on a different drive from my OS drive.

Also, it's not bricking. A repair via install disc will fix it. Booting a linux Live CD (Ubuntu etc) will allow you to re-create your boot.ini.

Bricking == hardware permanently reduced to non-functional status. I.E. only, ever, useful in the future as a brick/paperweight.

Other uses of the term "bricked" or "bricking" are wrong and not supported.

Virtual Machines

[Dr_Barnowl]

They probably test installers on VM snapshots like every other sane developer these days.

Firstly, I'm not even sure that VMs *use* boot.ini. Secondly, even if they do, they probably test the installer, say "yup, that works" and then trash the snapshot.

It uses google's "I am Feeling Lucky"

[mr_3ntropy]

Here's how [google.com] its done. The btnI parameter [scribd.com] redirects to the first link in search results. It seems to be using a hacked website to redirect to the actual target.

Really, google needs to wise up and disable that btnI parameter for GET requests.

It wouldn't hurt for the lameness filter to remove it from anonymous posts either.

Re:Insanely sloppy... but not without precedent

[X0563511]

Sorry, I admit that I had not read the article.

My grievance remains the same, however, in that access to boot.ini should have been denied.

Actually, by default, boot.ini is marked read-only and the patch installer should have respected that attribute, rather than overriding it.

Not a brick, dammit!

[CoreDump01]

A bricked device either to be sent in to the vendor for repairs, or ,as an alternative, can only be revived via special debugging hardware by people with god-like skills in a certain areas.

A blown OS is not, and never ever will be a brick. Get your terminology straight for once. Wikipedia explains rather nicely the nature of real "brick".

Re:How is this possible?

[grumbel]

### but since it doesn't work its about as useful as a brick

The point of bricking is that it stays that way and can't be fixed by any normal means, i.e. hardware it dead for good and a theoretical repair will likely cost as much as buying it new, if at all possible.

Lack of a booting Windows can certainly be very inconvenient, but its not bricking, not even close.

Re:How is this possible?

[MBGMorden]

I'd say it's being overused simply for being misused. This, for example, does not "brick" anything. For years I've had programs that could hose up a computer to the point that it needed a reinstall. Norton Utilities. Partition Magic (and a lot of other early partition resizing programs). Even Windows itself over time back in the 95/98 days, would eventually become unbootable. This was not "bricked". At most, an hour later I could have the machine usable again using nothing more sophisticated than a compact disc.

Now though, ANYTHING that temporarily impairs the function of a device now "bricks" it. It's the EXACT same thing that happened with "terrorist", a usage that strangely the geek community hated. Once upon a time, you had regular criminals, and you had terrorists, where terrorists were generally politically motivated and caused widespread destruction and panic for the purpose of achieving some specific agenda. Now, it seems like if you hold up a liquor store or hack an ATM you're declared a "terrorist". It's fear mongering at it's best. Use the scariest word possible to make the most impact; exaggeration is irrelevant.