25 Million SP2 Rejects?

[Scott Grady]

This can't be true can it? have read today that
25 million+ PC's have not been able to accept the new
security SP2 update. That could mean a fortune to get
them fixed for the repairers!

Scott G

[Lesley]

Where did you read it? - reference ?

>-----Original Message-----
>This can't be true can it? have read today that
>25 million+ PC's have not been able to accept the new
>security SP2 update. That could mean a fortune to get
>them fixed for the repairers!
>
>Scott G
>.
>

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

No, it's not true at all.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scott Grady" wrote:

| This can't be true can it? have read today that
| 25 million+ PC's have not been able to accept the new
| security SP2 update. That could mean a fortune to get
| them fixed for the repairers!
|
| Scott G

[Testy]

Yep I have been making $350 a day since it came out. I LOVE it.

Testy

"Scott Grady" > wrote in message
...
> This can't be true can it? have read today that
> 25 million+ PC's have not been able to accept the new
> security SP2 update. That could mean a fortune to get
> them fixed for the repairers!
>
> Scott G

Would it kill you to cite the source?

In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
counted the machines they found them on and concluded
that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
The press played the "operator game" with this and within
a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.

Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
just more typical reporting?

[Richard Urban]

Give a source link - or get lost!

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Scott Grady" > wrote in message
...
> This can't be true can it? have read today that
> 25 million+ PC's have not been able to accept the new
> security SP2 update. That could mean a fortune to get
> them fixed for the repairers!
>
> Scott G

[Scott]

Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
Scott G

>-----Original Message-----
>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>
>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>The press played the "operator game" with this and
within
>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>
>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>just more typical reporting?
>
>.
>

[Richard Urban]

There have only been about 250 million installations of Windows XP. Are you
saying that every single one of them have been upgraded to SP2?

Get real, get smart - get it right, or get out!

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
> Scott G
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>
>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
> within
>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>
>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>just more typical reporting?
>>
>>.
>>

[Scott]

Urban.
Are you trying to say it could worse than the scare
mongers are saying. Get real Urban!!
Scott

>-----Original Message-----
>There have only been about 250 million installations of
Windows XP. Are you
>saying that every single one of them have been upgraded
to SP2?
>
>Get real, get smart - get it right, or get out!
>
>--
>
>Regards:
>
>Richard Urban
>
>aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
>"Scott" > wrote in
message
...
>> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has
been
>> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is
fine.
>> Scott G
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>>
>>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>> within
>>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>>
>>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>>just more typical reporting?
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>
>.
>

[Jone Doe]

Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I don't
see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue. Again,
for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those are a
result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
> Scott G
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>
>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
> within
>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>
>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>just more typical reporting?
>>
>>.
>>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004

[David H. Lipman]

Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which has become an
epidemic problem in the past 12 months or so.

Dave




"Jone Doe" > wrote in message
...
| Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I don't
| see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue. Again,
| for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those are a
| result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
|
| "Scott" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
| > installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
| > answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
| > Scott G
| >
| >>-----Original Message-----
| >>Would it kill you to cite the source?
| >>
| >>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
| >>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
| >>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
| >>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
| >>The press played the "operator game" with this and
| > within
| >>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
| >>
| >>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
| >>just more typical reporting?
| >>
| >>.
| >>
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
|
|

[Richard Urban]

You're the scare monger here - and you are totally incorrect!

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Urban.
> Are you trying to say it could worse than the scare
> mongers are saying. Get real Urban!!
> Scott
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>There have only been about 250 million installations of
> Windows XP. Are you
>>saying that every single one of them have been upgraded
> to SP2?
>>
>>Get real, get smart - get it right, or get out!
>>
>>--
>>
>>Regards:
>>
>>Richard Urban
>>
>>aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>
>>"Scott" > wrote in
> message
...
>>> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>>> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has
> been
>>> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is
> fine.
>>> Scott G
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>>>
>>>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>>> within
>>>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>>>
>>>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>>>just more typical reporting?
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>

[Testy]

And YOUR source of statistics is....?

Testy

"Jone Doe" > wrote in message
...
> Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I
> don't see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
> Again, for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those
> are a result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
>
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
>> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
>> Scott G
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>>
>>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>> within
>>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>>
>>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>>just more typical reporting?
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>

[David H. Lipman]

Let me rephrase that...
Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which has become a
pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.

Dave

[Scott]

Hi David,
Please kindly explain the difference between an epidemic
problem and an andemic problem to us would you, as to be
honest I'm not sure.
Scott.
..
riginal Message-----
>Let me rephrase that...
>Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
to malware which has become a
>pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>
>Dave
>
>
>.
>

[Benny]

David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
Cheers - Ben
-
>-----Original Message-----
>Let me rephrase that...
>Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
to malware which has become a
>pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>
>Dave
>
>
>.
>

[David H. Lipman]

The term epidemic infers a mass infection but centralized locality.
The term pandemic infers a mass infection that it is a worldwide phenomenon.

While the term malware was used previously it is not in the class of viruses but in the
class of parasitical software such as; adware, spyware, browser hijackers, etc. It is the
pandemic infection of parasitical software in which I am referring to.

Dave




"Scott" > wrote in message
...
| Hi David,
| Please kindly explain the difference between an epidemic
| problem and an andemic problem to us would you, as to be
| honest I'm not sure.
| Scott.
| .
| riginal Message-----
| >Let me rephrase that...
| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
| to malware which has become a
| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
| >
| >Dave
| >
| >
| >.
| >

[Jone Doe]

"Pandemic" is fine, definition number 2: 2. affecting a great many:

"Benny" > wrote in message
...
> David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
> Cheers - Ben
> -
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Let me rephrase that...
>>Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
> to malware which has become a
>>pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>.
>>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004

[David H. Lipman]

No.

Systemic would be referring to one system.
When I use the term pandemic I am referring to the large number of platforms thus affected
around the world.

It is an International problem.

Dave




"Benny" > wrote in message
...
| David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
| Cheers - Ben
| -
| >-----Original Message-----
| >Let me rephrase that...
| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
| to malware which has become a
| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
| >
| >Dave
| >
| >
| >.
| >

[Jone Doe]

http://www.desktoppipeline.com/howto/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=46800481
since you asked nicely.

"Testy" > wrote in message
.. .
> And YOUR source of statistics is....?
>
> Testy
>
> "Jone Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I
>> don't see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
>> Again, for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those
>> are a result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
>>
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>>> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
>>> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
>>> Scott G
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>>>
>>>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>>> within
>>>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>>>
>>>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>>>just more typical reporting?
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004

[Testy]

I am subscribed to the LangaList, but I do not see the numbers you imply!

Testy

"Jone Doe" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.desktoppipeline.com/howto/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=46800481
> since you asked nicely.
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> And YOUR source of statistics is....?
>>
>> Testy
>>
>> "Jone Doe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I
>>> don't see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
>>> Again, for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those
>>> are a result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
>>>
>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>>>> installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
>>>> answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
>>>> Scott G
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>>>>>
>>>>>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>>>>>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>>>>>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>>>>>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>>>>>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>>>> within
>>>>>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>>>>>just more typical reporting?
>>>>>
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>

[Benny]

Yeah Dave, one system: Microsoft Windows opporating
system!!
Benny.
-

>-----Original Message-----
>No.
>
>Systemic would be referring to one system.
>When I use the term pandemic I am referring to the large
number of platforms thus affected
>around the world.
>
>It is an International problem.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>"Benny" > wrote in
message
...
>| David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
>| Cheers - Ben
>| -
>| >-----Original Message-----
>| >Let me rephrase that...
>| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be
attributed
>| to malware which has become a
>| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>| >
>| >Dave
>| >
>| >
>| >.
>| >
>
>
>.
>

[David H. Lipman]

Benny:

You have consumed too many of your name sake.

Do you know what a "Benny" is in New Jersey Shore speak ? ;-)

To get back to reality, all kidding aside, do you understand the "Chaos and Complex Systems"
in a computing platform postulate ?

Dave




"Benny" > wrote in message
...
| Yeah Dave, one system: Microsoft Windows opporating
| system!!
| Benny.
| -
|
| >-----Original Message-----
| >No.
| >
| >Systemic would be referring to one system.
| >When I use the term pandemic I am referring to the large
| number of platforms thus affected
| >around the world.
| >
| >It is an International problem.
| >
| >Dave
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >"Benny" > wrote in
| message
| ...
| >| David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
| >| Cheers - Ben
| >| -
| >| >-----Original Message-----
| >| >Let me rephrase that...
| >| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be
| attributed
| >| to malware which has become a
| >| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
| >| >
| >| >Dave
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >.
| >| >
| >
| >
| >.
| >

[David H. Lipman]

Actually, if we were discussing WinXP and Buffer Overflow vulnerabilities in RPC/DCOM then I
would say the term systemic would be apropos.

Dave




"Benny" > wrote in message
...
| David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
| Cheers - Ben
| -
| >-----Original Message-----
| >Let me rephrase that...
| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed
| to malware which has become a
| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
| >
| >Dave
| >
| >
| >.
| >

[Benny]

Sorry Dave,
Based in England, how could I know what a "Benny" is in
New Jersey Shore speak.
But even you must surly admit that Windows XP is now
getting out of hand, far, far too complicated, one has to
be very careful where one clicks these days. With so many
software writers trying to improve it for less than ten
MB per item, know wonder the manual is getting as big as
Encyclopedia Brittanica!!!
I do think their stystem restore was a 'Brainwave'
Benny.
..

-Original Message-----
>Benny:
>
>You have consumed too many of your name sake.
>
>Do you know what a "Benny" is in New Jersey Shore
speak ? ;-)
>
>To get back to reality, all kidding aside, do you
understand the "Chaos and Complex Systems"
>in a computing platform postulate ?
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>"Benny" > wrote in
message
...
>| Yeah Dave, one system: Microsoft Windows opporating
>| system!!
>| Benny.
>| -
>|
>| >-----Original Message-----
>| >No.
>| >
>| >Systemic would be referring to one system.
>| >When I use the term pandemic I am referring to the
large
>| number of platforms thus affected
>| >around the world.
>| >
>| >It is an International problem.
>| >
>| >Dave
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >"Benny" > wrote in
>| message
>| ...
>| >| David, I think you mean systemic don't you?
>| >| Cheers - Ben
>| >| -
>| >| >-----Original Message-----
>| >| >Let me rephrase that...
>| >| >Actually a high percentage of failures can be
>| attributed
>| >| to malware which has become a
>| >| >pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>| >| >
>| >| >Dave
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >.
>| >| >
>| >
>| >
>| >.
>| >
>
>
>.
>

[Don Taylor]

"David H. Lipman" > writes:
>Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which
>has become an epidemic problem in the past 12 months or so.

Would you quote the source of evidence for this incessantly repeated claim?
Thus far I haven't seen any credible source REALLY documenting this.

Thank you

>"Jone Doe" > wrote in message
...
>| Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I don't
>| see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue. Again,
>| for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those are a
>| result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
>|
>| "Scott" > wrote in message
>| ...
>| > Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>| > installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
>| > answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
>| > Scott G
>| >
>| >>-----Original Message-----
>| >>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>| >>
>| >>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>| >>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>| >>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>| >>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>| >>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>| > within
>| >>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>| >>
>| >>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>| >>just more typical reporting?
>| >>
>| >>.
>| >>
>|
>|
>| ---
>| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>| Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
>|
>|

They tried to tell me here that the reason my system wouldn't boot after sp2
install was because of spy/ad/mal ware. Can't be - unless it all came from
a Microsoft site 'cause that's the ONLY sites visited after a clean OS
install -to get pre sp2 updated - prior to the sp2 install.

Then they tried the 'bios needs updating' routine. Wrong , AGAIN! BIOS was
updated just a week earlier.

'Malware' is just the 'excuse talking points' of the post sp2 Microsoft Rah,
Rah club!


"Don Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> "David H. Lipman" > writes:
> >Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which
> >has become an epidemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>
> Would you quote the source of evidence for this incessantly repeated
claim?
> Thus far I haven't seen any credible source REALLY documenting this.
>
> Thank you
>
> >"Jone Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >| Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I
don't
> >| see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
Again,
> >| for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those are a
> >| result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
> >|
> >| "Scott" > wrote in message
> >| ...
> >| > Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
> >| > installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
> >| > answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
> >| > Scott G
> >| >
> >| >>-----Original Message-----
> >| >>Would it kill you to cite the source?
> >| >>
> >| >>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
> >| >>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
> >| >>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
> >| >>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
> >| >>The press played the "operator game" with this and
> >| > within
> >| >>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
> >| >>
> >| >>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
> >| >>just more typical reporting?
> >| >>
> >| >>.
> >| >>
> >|
> >|
> >| ---
> >| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >| Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
> >|
> >|
>
>

[Frank]

SP2 just proves that more wrestling fans have computers
then can be imagined.

"David H. Lipman" > wrote in message
...
> Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware
> which has become an
> epidemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
> Dave

>
> "Jone Doe" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from
> "I don't
> | see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
> Again,
> | for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those
> are a
> | result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
> |
> | "Scott" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
> | > installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
> | > answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
> | > Scott G
> | >
> | >>-----Original Message-----
> | >>Would it kill you to cite the source?
> | >>
> | >>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
> | >>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
> | >>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
> | >>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
> | >>The press played the "operator game" with this and
> | > within
> | >>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
> | >>
> | >>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
> | >>just more typical reporting?

[Rocky]

I went ahead and installed SP2 a couple days ago, and so far everything
works great! A matter fact, the computer seems faster! I can't find any
incompatibility's yet. I was impressed how streamlined and simple the
installation interface was. Towards the end of the install, it asked me a
few questions regarding how I wanted the firewall to functions, etc. It saw
Zone Alarm and asked if I would be using it. After telling it I would be
using Zone Alarm as my firewall, it asked about which security center I
wanted to use, McAfee's or SP2, I was impressed that it was aware of my
configuration and used that data to make the best choice setting up.
I know I'm one person, but I thought I'd share my story none the less.
I hope other's have just as much luck as I did.

"Frank" > wrote in message
...
> SP2 just proves that more wrestling fans have computers
> then can be imagined.
>
> "David H. Lipman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which
>> has become an
>> epidemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>> Dave
>
>>
>> "Jone Doe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> | Even if you take your numbers seriously, the 'problem' ranges from "I
>> don't
>> | see the XP Professional on the splash screen" and up as an issue.
>> Again,
>> | for the most part, even the 10% with issues probably 90% of those are a
>> | result of operator error and can be fixed quite simply.
>> |
>> | "Scott" > wrote in message
>> | ...
>> | > Spot on! It was in a local rag, stated 250 million
>> | > installations and 10% were bugged! My question has been
>> | > answered thanks, was just checking and my update is fine.
>> | > Scott G
>> | >
>> | >>-----Original Message-----
>> | >>Would it kill you to cite the source?
>> | >>
>> | >>In the early days of SP2, some consulting company took
>> | >>MS's own list of apps that may behave differently and
>> | >>counted the machines they found them on and concluded
>> | >>that 10% of machines had an "opportunity for an issue".
>> | >>The press played the "operator game" with this and
>> | > within
>> | >>a day it had been turned into: 10% of machines fail.
>> | >>
>> | >>Does your source have some credible evidence or is it
>> | >>just more typical reporting?
>
>

[Dave Senior]

Hey David,

Is this the reason why you have not installed SP2 yet? If it is not good for you why should it be good for others? Does the term hypocrisy come to mind at all?

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

> Let me rephrase that...
> Actually a high percentage of failures can be attributed to malware which has become a
> pandemic problem in the past 12 months or so.
>
> Dave

--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich jerks!