SP2

[Jeff]

I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
anything. A couple of my programs still work like
Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
either. Can anyone help me with this?

[Jack]

You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or software
items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.

However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating system it
ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware, that is/was usable
pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any item installed under the
'Compatibility Mode'!

Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security item
and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and every security
item since.

I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS screwed the
pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet connection
methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only works with some
of them - and that is what they have done!


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
> now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
> they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
> anything. A couple of my programs still work like
> Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
> and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
> either. Can anyone help me with this?

[Russell]

Did you have system restore turned on, maybe that will
work. Access it through 'Help and Support' on the start
menu.

Have you also tried starting in 'safe mode' to see if you
can access 'add and remove' programs.

>-----Original Message-----
>I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
>now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
>they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
>anything. A couple of my programs still work like
>Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
>and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
>either. Can anyone help me with this?
>.
>

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Jack wrote:
> You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or
> software items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
>
> However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating
> system it ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware,
> that is/was usable pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any
> item installed under the 'Compatibility Mode'!
>
> Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security
> item and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and
> every security item since.
>
> I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS
> screwed the pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
> hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet
> connection methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only
> works with some of them - and that is what they have done!
>
>

Even Microsoft, with all of it's resources could not possibly test every
software application, much less every possible combination of hardware
drivers, software and other peripherals that are available. The makers of
the software who advertise that their product is compatible with XP or XP
SP1 must bear some of the responsibility for the problems that occur. Many
have been dragging their feet and waiting until the last minute on this
upgrade.

These vendors and developers are given an abundant amount of time and free
resources to test their applications prior to the launch of any major
upgrade for any MS operating system.

Also, in many of these cases, SP2 is doing the job it was intended to do by
securing systems that were very unsecure, prior to the installation.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

[Rock]

Jeff wrote:

> I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
> now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
> they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
> anything. A couple of my programs still work like
> Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
> and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
> either. Can anyone help me with this?

How to remove Windows XP Service Pack 2 from your computer
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=875350

Installing Service Packs
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

Pre-Install, Install, Tidying Up Afterwards
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

What to Know Before You Download and Install Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sp2_whattoknow.mspx

Get the Latest Updates and Information from Your PC Manufacturer Before
Installing Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/oemlinks.mspx

The hard disk space requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=837783

Using programs and hardware with Service Pack 2 (SP2)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;ln;xpsp2swhw

Programs that may behave differently in Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=884130

If running Office 2003 make sure you have the latest Service Pack
http://office.microsoft.com/home/default.aspx

Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2chngs.mspx

Windows XP Service Pack 2: What's New for Internet Explorer and Outlook
Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/ieoeoverview.mspx

Windows XP Service Pack 2 Support Center
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;windowsxpsp2

Free Technical Support for SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;en-us;Prodoffer80&sd=GN

[Rock]

Jack wrote:

> You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or software
> items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
>
> However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating system it
> ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware, that is/was usable
> pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any item installed under the
> 'Compatibility Mode'!
>
> Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security item
> and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and every security
> item since.
>
> I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS screwed the
> pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
> hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet connection
> methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only works with some
> of them - and that is what they have done!
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
>>now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
>>they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
>>anything. A couple of my programs still work like
>>Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
>>and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
>>either. Can anyone help me with this?

And what's your point? Is this supposed to help the OP?

[Jack]

And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to comply with
a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even then, I can understand
why it happens for a totally new OS. But requiring vendors to subscribe to
compliance with a upgrade to an existing OS is dead wrong.

I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless that was
working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it does, the upgrade
is to fault - not the vendor item!

The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is being
displayed on this one - in spades!


"Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
...
> Jack wrote:
> > You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or
> > software items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
> >
> > However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating
> > system it ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware,
> > that is/was usable pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any
> > item installed under the 'Compatibility Mode'!
> >
> > Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security
> > item and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and
> > every security item since.
> >
> > I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS
> > screwed the pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
> > hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet
> > connection methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only
> > works with some of them - and that is what they have done!
> >
> >
>
> Even Microsoft, with all of it's resources could not possibly test every
> software application, much less every possible combination of hardware
> drivers, software and other peripherals that are available. The makers of
> the software who advertise that their product is compatible with XP or XP
> SP1 must bear some of the responsibility for the problems that occur. Many
> have been dragging their feet and waiting until the last minute on this
> upgrade.
>
> These vendors and developers are given an abundant amount of time and free
> resources to test their applications prior to the launch of any major
> upgrade for any MS operating system.
>
> Also, in many of these cases, SP2 is doing the job it was intended to do
by
> securing systems that were very unsecure, prior to the installation.
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>

[Jack]

The ago old question is brought up here. It is better to cure the cause of
the bleeding or simply to bandage the wound? The cause in this case is an
install of sp2. Leave the bullet in and simply stop the bleeding and you
will always have a damaged system. Get rid of sp2 FIRST then spend the
hours, starting from scratch, to get your system back to what it was pre
sp2!


"Rock" > wrote in message
...
> Jack wrote:
>
> > You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or
software
> > items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
> >
> > However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating system
it
> > ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware, that is/was
usable
> > pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any item installed under
the
> > 'Compatibility Mode'!
> >
> > Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security
item
> > and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and every
security
> > item since.
> >
> > I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS screwed
the
> > pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
> > hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet
connection
> > methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only works with
some
> > of them - and that is what they have done!
> >
> >
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I downloaded the service pack 2 update from microsoft and
> >>now many of my programs won't work. When I click them
> >>they just don't do anything, no error message pops up or
> >>anything. A couple of my programs still work like
> >>Internet explorer and outlook express but thats about it,
> >>and I can't access Add or Remove Programs to remove SP2
> >>either. Can anyone help me with this?
>
> And what's your point? Is this supposed to help the OP?
>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Jack;
The venders don't have to do anything.
Who said they did?
It is their choice to leave their software poorly written as is
sometimes the case.
Everyone wants Microsoft to write more secure code.
But now that it is happening, you say "WHY".
The answer has been given many times and you have not seen it.

"I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless
that was working just fine under the OS that was upgraded!"
If it was bad code which is sometimes the case, it is NOT working fine
even though it appears to work fine.

If the venders want to support Windows XP SP-2, they need to change
their code if that is the issue.
If not, then they do not have to.
They can explain to their customers why their software no longer works
with code enhancements that many have been demanding for a long time.
Or they can ignore their customers as the industry moves toward more
security.

You really have a few options and Microsoft making SP-2 work with
everything even if SP-1 worked is unreasonable and impossible because:
How many Windows XP computers in the world?
Then realize no two are identical.
How can code especially something as extensive as a Service Pack be
assured to work with all?
Options:
Do nothing and keep your computer as it is.
Do what is necessary to get your hardware and software compliant with
SP-2.
Go to another operating system, there are several options that do not
include Microsoft.

Anything you want that requires changes in SP-2 will not happen,
unless you consider the patches that may be released.
But SP-2 is still there as SP-2.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to
> comply with
> a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even then, I can
> understand
> why it happens for a totally new OS. But requiring vendors to
> subscribe to
> compliance with a upgrade to an existing OS is dead wrong.
>
> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless
> that was
> working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it does, the
> upgrade
> is to fault - not the vendor item!
>
> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is
> being
> displayed on this one - in spades!
>
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jack wrote:
>> > You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or
>> > software items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
>> >
>> > However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating
>> > system it ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware,
>> > that is/was usable pre sp install, unusable. And that includes
>> > any
>> > item installed under the 'Compatibility Mode'!
>> >
>> > Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch,
>> > security
>> > item and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and
>> > every security item since.
>> >
>> > I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS
>> > screwed the pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
>> > hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet
>> > connection methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that
>> > only
>> > works with some of them - and that is what they have done!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Even Microsoft, with all of it's resources could not possibly test
>> every
>> software application, much less every possible combination of
>> hardware
>> drivers, software and other peripherals that are available. The
>> makers of
>> the software who advertise that their product is compatible with XP
>> or XP
>> SP1 must bear some of the responsibility for the problems that
>> occur. Many
>> have been dragging their feet and waiting until the last minute on
>> this
>> upgrade.
>>
>> These vendors and developers are given an abundant amount of time
>> and free
>> resources to test their applications prior to the launch of any
>> major
>> upgrade for any MS operating system.
>>
>> Also, in many of these cases, SP2 is doing the job it was intended
>> to do
> by
>> securing systems that were very unsecure, prior to the
>> installation.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ronnie Vernon
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>
>

[Different Jeff]

Hi Jeff,

Before you installed SP2, did you properly prepare your
computer for the update? Most user`s problems are from
not properly preparing and not properly installing the
Update. Many of the MVP`s have given links to sites to
help users prepare their computers.

I have installed it on two of my personal computers and
have had no problems with any of the programs installed on
it. I have also installed it on over 50 production
machines at work and have 26 to go, all of them are
working fine. As long as your system has been properly
prepared, 99% of the updates has no problem.

Jeff

>-----Original Message-----
>Jack;
>The venders don't have to do anything.
>Who said they did?
>It is their choice to leave their software poorly written
as is
>sometimes the case.
>Everyone wants Microsoft to write more secure code.
>But now that it is happening, you say "WHY".
>The answer has been given many times and you have not
seen it.
>
>"I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render
anything useless
>that was working just fine under the OS that was
upgraded!"
>If it was bad code which is sometimes the case, it is NOT
working fine
>even though it appears to work fine.
>
>If the venders want to support Windows XP SP-2, they need
to change
>their code if that is the issue.
>If not, then they do not have to.
>They can explain to their customers why their software no
longer works
>with code enhancements that many have been demanding for
a long time.
>Or they can ignore their customers as the industry moves
toward more
>security.
>
>You really have a few options and Microsoft making SP-2
work with
>everything even if SP-1 worked is unreasonable and
impossible because:
>How many Windows XP computers in the world?
>Then realize no two are identical.
>How can code especially something as extensive as a
Service Pack be
>assured to work with all?
>Options:
>Do nothing and keep your computer as it is.
>Do what is necessary to get your hardware and software
compliant with
>SP-2.
>Go to another operating system, there are several options
that do not
>include Microsoft.
>
>Anything you want that requires changes in SP-2 will not
happen,
>unless you consider the patches that may be released.
>But SP-2 is still there as SP-2.
>
>--
>Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
>"Jack" > wrote in message
...
>> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products
so as to
>> comply with
>> a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even
then, I can
>> understand
>> why it happens for a totally new OS. But requiring
vendors to
>> subscribe to
>> compliance with a upgrade to an existing OS is dead
wrong.
>>
>> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render
anything useless
>> that was
>> working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If
it does, the
>> upgrade
>> is to fault - not the vendor item!
>>
>> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of
Microsoft is
>> being
>> displayed on this one - in spades!
>>
>>
>> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jack wrote:
>>> > You may be told that some, or even many, of your
hardware and/or
>>> > software items may not be compatible with SP2. That
may well be.
>>> >
>>> > However, if MS is going to release a service pack to
an operating
>>> > system it ought NOT to render any item, software
and/or hardware,
>>> > that is/was usable pre sp install, unusable. And
that includes
>>> > any
>>> > item installed under the 'Compatibility Mode'!
>>> >
>>> > Over the years I have installed nearly every
upgrade, patch,
>>> > security
>>> > item and service pack that MS has offered -
including XP sp1 and
>>> > every security item since.
>>> >
>>> > I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of
them. IMO MS
>>> > screwed the pooch on this one!! There appears to be
WAY too many
>>> > hardware/software/personal settings and
configurations/internet
>>> > connection methods/ etc for them to be able to
release a sp that
>>> > only
>>> > works with some of them - and that is what they have
done!
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Even Microsoft, with all of it's resources could not
possibly test
>>> every
>>> software application, much less every possible
combination of
>>> hardware
>>> drivers, software and other peripherals that are
available. The
>>> makers of
>>> the software who advertise that their product is
compatible with XP
>>> or XP
>>> SP1 must bear some of the responsibility for the
problems that
>>> occur. Many
>>> have been dragging their feet and waiting until the
last minute on
>>> this
>>> upgrade.
>>>
>>> These vendors and developers are given an abundant
amount of time
>>> and free
>>> resources to test their applications prior to the
launch of any
>>> major
>>> upgrade for any MS operating system.
>>>
>>> Also, in many of these cases, SP2 is doing the job it
was intended
>>> to do
>> by
>>> securing systems that were very unsecure, prior to the
>>> installation.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ronnie Vernon
>>> Microsoft MVP
>>> Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>

[Greg R]

Just for your info not all companies have money coming out of their
ears like Microsoft. So they may not be able to fix it.

What about those companies that are out of business that had good
software.

I see alot of software say NOT for xp at the store.


Greg R



>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:10:19 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote:

>Jack;
>The venders don't have to do anything.
>Who said they did?
>It is their choice to leave their software poorly written as is
>sometimes the case.
>Everyone wants Microsoft to write more secure code.
>But now that it is happening, you say "WHY".
>The answer has been given many times and you have not seen it.
>
>"I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless
>that was working just fine under the OS that was upgraded!"
>If it was bad code which is sometimes the case, it is NOT working fine
>even though it appears to work fine.
>
>If the venders want to support Windows XP SP-2, they need to change
>their code if that is the issue.
>If not, then they do not have to.
>They can explain to their customers why their software no longer works
>with code enhancements that many have been demanding for a long time.
>Or they can ignore their customers as the industry moves toward more
>security.
>
>You really have a few options and Microsoft making SP-2 work with
>everything even if SP-1 worked is unreasonable and impossible because:
>How many Windows XP computers in the world?
>Then realize no two are identical.
>How can code especially something as extensive as a Service Pack be
>assured to work with all?
>Options:
>Do nothing and keep your computer as it is.
>Do what is necessary to get your hardware and software compliant with
>SP-2.
>Go to another operating system, there are several options that do not
>include Microsoft.
>
>Anything you want that requires changes in SP-2 will not happen,
>unless you consider the patches that may be released.
>But SP-2 is still there as SP-2.

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Jack wrote:
> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to
> comply with a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even
> then, I can understand why it happens for a totally new OS. But
> requiring vendors to subscribe to compliance with a upgrade to an
> existing OS is dead wrong.
>
> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless
> that was working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it
> does, the upgrade is to fault - not the vendor item!
>
> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is being
> displayed on this one - in spades!
>

Jack

You are showing that you have little knowledge about the software industry.
If a developer wants their software to work, they need an operating system
to host the software. If they want their software to continue to work
properly, they must make sure that the software is kept up to date with that
operating system. This is the way it works. It doesn't matter whether the OS
is Windows, Linux, Unix, OS2, DOS or whatever. Their is nothing monopolistic
about this.

A Service Pack is always a major change to the code for an OS. Anyone who
develops software can testify to this. Many major software programs already
had the required updates available for their applications before SP2 was
released. The vendors who did not are either lazy, don't care or are looking
to profit from the SP2 update by requiring a paid update to their programs.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Microsoft is not responsible for those that go out of business or even
those unwilling to support their own products.
Don't buy it if it is "NOT for xp".

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" > wrote in message
...
> Just for your info not all companies have money coming out of their
> ears like Microsoft. So they may not be able to fix it.
>
> What about those companies that are out of business that had good
> software.
>
> I see alot of software say NOT for xp at the store.
>
>
> Greg R

[Greg R]

I agree with Jack somewhat on this.

When Winme came out (Almost all software worked with-except some dos
programs) I am not talking about all the bugs in Windows me.

I also have 98se. Dual boot. So, I will keep buying those that say
not for xp.

Xp has forced me between to dual boot 98se & xp

As I told Jupiter. The software companies are not lazy. They may
not have the money like Microsoft does.

Alot of Microsoft programs don't work with xp sp2. You would think
microsoft would include the patch with xp sp2. Regardless if the
program is installed or not.



Greg R




>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:00:47 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to
>> comply with a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even
>> then, I can understand why it happens for a totally new OS. But
>> requiring vendors to subscribe to compliance with a upgrade to an
>> existing OS is dead wrong.
>>
>> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless
>> that was working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it
>> does, the upgrade is to fault - not the vendor item!
>>
>> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is being
>> displayed on this one - in spades!
>>
>
>Jack
>
>You are showing that you have little knowledge about the software industry.
>If a developer wants their software to work, they need an operating system
>to host the software. If they want their software to continue to work
>properly, they must make sure that the software is kept up to date with that
>operating system. This is the way it works. It doesn't matter whether the OS
>is Windows, Linux, Unix, OS2, DOS or whatever. Their is nothing monopolistic
>about this.
>
>A Service Pack is always a major change to the code for an OS. Anyone who
>develops software can testify to this. Many major software programs already
>had the required updates available for their applications before SP2 was
>released. The vendors who did not are either lazy, don't care or are looking
>to profit from the SP2 update by requiring a paid update to their programs.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Some of the software companies are taking their time.
whether that is "lazy" I can not say.

Microsoft would have major problems if Microsoft started making
patches for non Microsoft software.
The legal hurdles alone would probably be insurmountable.
Then the lawsuits start "You fixed ours, why", "You fixed theirs, why
not ours"
Microsoft does not have access to the necessary code to do it
properly.
And the list can go on.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" > wrote in message
...
>I agree with Jack somewhat on this.
>
> When Winme came out (Almost all software worked with-except some dos
> programs) I am not talking about all the bugs in Windows me.
>
> I also have 98se. Dual boot. So, I will keep buying those that say
> not for xp.
>
> Xp has forced me between to dual boot 98se & xp
>
> As I told Jupiter. The software companies are not lazy. They may
> not have the money like Microsoft does.
>
> Alot of Microsoft programs don't work with xp sp2. You would think
> microsoft would include the patch with xp sp2. Regardless if the
> program is installed or not.
>
>
>
> Greg R
>
>
>
>
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:00:47 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
> wrote:
>
>>Jack wrote:
>>> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to
>>> comply with a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even
>>> then, I can understand why it happens for a totally new OS. But
>>> requiring vendors to subscribe to compliance with a upgrade to an
>>> existing OS is dead wrong.
>>>
>>> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything
>>> useless
>>> that was working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it
>>> does, the upgrade is to fault - not the vendor item!
>>>
>>> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is
>>> being
>>> displayed on this one - in spades!
>>>
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>You are showing that you have little knowledge about the software
>>industry.
>>If a developer wants their software to work, they need an operating
>>system
>>to host the software. If they want their software to continue to
>>work
>>properly, they must make sure that the software is kept up to date
>>with that
>>operating system. This is the way it works. It doesn't matter
>>whether the OS
>>is Windows, Linux, Unix, OS2, DOS or whatever. Their is nothing
>>monopolistic
>>about this.
>>
>>A Service Pack is always a major change to the code for an OS.
>>Anyone who
>>develops software can testify to this. Many major software programs
>>already
>>had the required updates available for their applications before SP2
>>was
>>released. The vendors who did not are either lazy, don't care or are
>>looking
>>to profit from the SP2 update by requiring a paid update to their
>>programs.
>

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:46:34 -0700, "Jack" > wrote:

>And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to comply with
>a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even then, I can understand
>why it happens for a totally new OS.

Because we finally managed to knock some clue into MS's head that some
of the practices they were encouraging developers to use, were too
dangerous in view of the opportunities they extended to malware.

One point: Think of an SP as a new point revision of the OS that the
vendor did not choose to market as a new value-added version.

Precidents abound; Win95 SP2 was as significant a new version of Win9x
as was Win98, and NT 4's SP3 virtually re-invented the whole OS,
compared to (say) the point revision of Win3.11 over Win3.1

So you should approach an SP with as much caution as an OS upgrade.

>The upgrade should not render anything useless that was working
>just fine under the OS that was upgraded!

I disagree. Software that relied on excessive access to the system,
should indeed be stomped on, broken and blocked.

>The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is being
>displayed on this one - in spades!

The problem was the rights that developers were encouraged to grab for
themselves in the first place! Imagine there's a knock at the door,
and there's a delivery dude who expects you to give him a front door
key so he can walk into any room he likes and deliver his junk mail
just *so*. And snaffle anything he finds interesting along the way.

That's the way web sites have worked since IE 4 or so, when MS was
competing for browser share with Netscape. In those days, it was
"look at the kewl things you can do if you write for *our* browser,
we'll give you your visitors' ass on a plate to do with what you like"

So now SP2 has to try and stuff the genie back in the bottle, after
years of developers have taken up all the rope thrown to them and have
been typing us up in knots ever since - BHO invaders, spam through the
messenger service, all that sort of thing. Sure, some apps will get
caught in the cross-fire, but it's the best outcome possible (because
we can't go back and wipe out the entire IE 4 experience).

Still, I'd rather be here (on SP2) than back there (with XP acting as
a "client" to any box on the Internet that called itself a "server").



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:00:47 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"

>If a developer wants their software to work, they need an operating system
>to host the software. If they want their software to continue to work
>properly, they must make sure that the software is kept up to date with that
>operating system. This is the way it works. It doesn't matter whether the OS
>is Windows, Linux, Unix, OS2, DOS or whatever.

Developers also have guidelines that document the approved ways of
doing things, as opposed to perhaps older things that are "no longer
supported" or things that are known, but are undocumented. If you
"paint between the lines", i.e. stick to what is approved and
supported, you are less likely to find your air hose sliced off when a
new version of the OS comes out!

Developers may also test their products on beta (pre-release) builds
of the new OS, so that when the OS is released, they are ready.
There's a risk to that; namely, that beta testing may dictate changes
to the OS that's finally released, thus breaking assumptions and
testing that were developed during the beta phase.

All of this assumes it is in the OS vendor's hands as to whether the
OS should be changed or not. That's not the case with SP2, where
real-world stressors (commercial and traditional malware) have forced
MS to U-turn from thier previous direction.

That's the very opposite of vendor arrogance; that's a vendor
listening to feedback and turning away from prior arrogance.

The pain for developers is that this sea-change wasn't really
predictable from prior documentation - so developers who laughed off
"MS to get serious about security" as emty spin-doctoring and who
dozed through SP2's beta may find themselves caught flat-footed now.


>-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -

[Greg R]

Juipiter
Please, specify who you replying too.


Greg R

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:31:47 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote:

>Some of the software companies are taking their time.
>whether that is "lazy" I can not say.
>
>Microsoft would have major problems if Microsoft started making
>patches for non Microsoft software.
>The legal hurdles alone would probably be insurmountable.
>Then the lawsuits start "You fixed ours, why", "You fixed theirs, why
>not ours"
>Microsoft does not have access to the necessary code to do it
>properly.
>And the list can go on.

[Rock]

Jack wrote:

> And WHY should any vendor have to change their products so as to comply with
> a SP? Even though I disagree with it happening even then, I can understand
> why it happens for a totally new OS. But requiring vendors to subscribe to
> compliance with a upgrade to an existing OS is dead wrong.
>
> I'll say it again!! The upgrade should not render anything useless that was
> working just fine under the OS that was upgraded! If it does, the upgrade
> is to fault - not the vendor item!
>
> The absolute, unchecked, monopolistic arrogance of Microsoft is being
> displayed on this one - in spades!
>
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jack wrote:
>>
>>>You may be told that some, or even many, of your hardware and/or
>>>software items may not be compatible with SP2. That may well be.
>>>
>>>However, if MS is going to release a service pack to an operating
>>>system it ought NOT to render any item, software and/or hardware,
>>>that is/was usable pre sp install, unusable. And that includes any
>>>item installed under the 'Compatibility Mode'!
>>>
>>>Over the years I have installed nearly every upgrade, patch, security
>>>item and service pack that MS has offered - including XP sp1 and
>>>every security item since.
>>>
>>>I've NEVER had so much as a burp caused by any of them. IMO MS
>>>screwed the pooch on this one!! There appears to be WAY too many
>>>hardware/software/personal settings and configurations/internet
>>>connection methods/ etc for them to be able to release a sp that only
>>>works with some of them - and that is what they have done!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Even Microsoft, with all of it's resources could not possibly test every
>>software application, much less every possible combination of hardware
>>drivers, software and other peripherals that are available. The makers of
>>the software who advertise that their product is compatible with XP or XP
>>SP1 must bear some of the responsibility for the problems that occur. Many
>>have been dragging their feet and waiting until the last minute on this
>>upgrade.
>>
>>These vendors and developers are given an abundant amount of time and free
>>resources to test their applications prior to the launch of any major
>>upgrade for any MS operating system.
>>
>>Also, in many of these cases, SP2 is doing the job it was intended to do
>
> by
>
>>securing systems that were very unsecure, prior to the installation.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Ronnie Vernon
>>Microsoft MVP
>>Windows Shell/User

You are very naive. For one thing you are assuming the software was
well written to begin with. Things change. That's part of life.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It was you Greg as the threading clearly showed.
Also see the bottom section of my post.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Greg R" > wrote in message
...
> Juipiter
> Please, specify who you replying too.
>
>
> Greg R
>
>>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:31:47 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> wrote:
>
>>Some of the software companies are taking their time.
>>whether that is "lazy" I can not say.
>>
>>Microsoft would have major problems if Microsoft started making
>>patches for non Microsoft software.
>>The legal hurdles alone would probably be insurmountable.
>>Then the lawsuits start "You fixed ours, why", "You fixed theirs,
>>why
>>not ours"
>>Microsoft does not have access to the necessary code to do it
>>properly.
>>And the list can go on.
>

[Greg R]

Jupiter,
Some reason your full post is not showing up. When I click follow-up
usenet messages.

1st
I never said the software companies was lazy. That was from someone
else. I possible didn’t paste that correctly

2nd
I was talking about including the patches for their own products with
xp sp2. I know they cannot patch non-microsoft software. That would
cost them alot of money if they did that.



Greg R

[dragonfly]

I just downloaded SP2 and now I cannot open Outlook and am having problems
with other Microsoft programs. If I unistall SP2 will the problems be
resolved?

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:00:47 -0700, "Ronnie Vernon MVP"
>
> >If a developer wants their software to work, they need an operating system
> >to host the software. If they want their software to continue to work
> >properly, they must make sure that the software is kept up to date with that
> >operating system. This is the way it works. It doesn't matter whether the OS
> >is Windows, Linux, Unix, OS2, DOS or whatever.
>
> Developers also have guidelines that document the approved ways of
> doing things, as opposed to perhaps older things that are "no longer
> supported" or things that are known, but are undocumented. If you
> "paint between the lines", i.e. stick to what is approved and
> supported, you are less likely to find your air hose sliced off when a
> new version of the OS comes out!
>
> Developers may also test their products on beta (pre-release) builds
> of the new OS, so that when the OS is released, they are ready.
> There's a risk to that; namely, that beta testing may dictate changes
> to the OS that's finally released, thus breaking assumptions and
> testing that were developed during the beta phase.
>
> All of this assumes it is in the OS vendor's hands as to whether the
> OS should be changed or not. That's not the case with SP2, where
> real-world stressors (commercial and traditional malware) have forced
> MS to U-turn from thier previous direction.
>
> That's the very opposite of vendor arrogance; that's a vendor
> listening to feedback and turning away from prior arrogance.
>
> The pain for developers is that this sea-change wasn't really
> predictable from prior documentation - so developers who laughed off
> "MS to get serious about security" as emty spin-doctoring and who
> dozed through SP2's beta may find themselves caught flat-footed now.
>
>
> >-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
> >----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:13:03 -0700, dragonfly

>I just downloaded SP2 and now I cannot open Outlook and am having problems
>with other Microsoft programs. If I unistall SP2 will the problems be
>resolved?

Not sure, for two reasons:

1) I don't know what your original PC's state was

Was your PC al all troublesome before you installed SP2?

2) I know of no SP2 vs. Outllook issues

As there aren't issues with Outlook and other MSware apps that I'm
aware of, I'm in somedoubt as to whether it's SP2 per se (as opposed
to, say, the general effect of installing code on a wobbly PC) that's
causing the problems.

If it's a general effect, as I suspect it may be, then uninstalling
SP2 may not fix things, or make things worse.

If it's a specific SP2 issue, then unistlling SP2 should fix.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
I *am* a power user!
I have electricity bills to prove it!
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -