SP2 - Why bother?

[Gary]

Greetings to all!

I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
endless problems.

1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
booted this time and Windows was fine.
4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
didn't like SP2.
5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
there could be more?

So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!

I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.

Gary

[David H. Lipman]

Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?

Dave



"Gary" > wrote in message
48.16...
| Greetings to all!
|
| I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
| users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
| endless problems.
|
| 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
| would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
| 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
| Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
| 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
| booted this time and Windows was fine.
| 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
| programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
| bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
| didn't like SP2.
| 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
| being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
| 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
| Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
| 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
| there could be more?
|
| So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
| know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
| that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
|
| I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
| I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
| a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
| choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
|
| Gary
|

[S.Sengupta]

Great reply.:o)

regards,
ssg MS-MVP

David H. Lipman wrote:

> Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> 48.16...
> | Greetings to all!
> |
> | I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
> | users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
> | endless problems.
> |
> | 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
> | would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> | 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> | Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> | 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
> | booted this time and Windows was fine.
> | 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
> | programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
> | bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> | didn't like SP2.
> | 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
> | being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> | 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> | Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> | 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> | there could be more?
> |
> | So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
> | know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
> | that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
> |
> | I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
> | I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
> | a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
> | choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
> |
> | Gary
> |
>
>

[Sandman]

I too, have read many of the problems people are having with SP2 and decided
from the beginning NOT to install it, at least for now. I have it on a disc.
When i questioned efficacy of insrtalling it because of stuff you mentioned,
I was told it was a solid piece of software and the problems listed herein
were miniscule considering the number of XP users there are.
Well, maybe the number is small (compared to millions of users) but there
are enough problem users here to keep me away from it. I was also told the
problems people were having were mostly due to their not 'prepping' their
install prior to SP2..... These were people who regularly monitor some of
these newsgroups and help people like you and I with problems; they ARE
knowledgeable, don't misunderstand, but they are blowing smoke if they think
anyone would believe SP2 is anything but a royal pain in the *ss for many
people. And it ain't gonna go away. I am hoping for a patch for the patch...
"Gary" > wrote in message
48.16...
> Greetings to all!
>
> I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
> users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
> endless problems.
>
> 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
> would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
> booted this time and Windows was fine.
> 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
> programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
> bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> didn't like SP2.
> 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
> being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> there could be more?
>
> So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
> know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
> that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
>
> I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
> I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
> a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
> choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
>
> Gary
>

[Kip Kniskern]

Check out this article from eWeek's Larry Seltzer
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1724107,00.asp

and get a clue.....

kip




"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>I too, have read many of the problems people are having with SP2 and
>decided
> from the beginning NOT to install it, at least for now. I have it on a
> disc.
> When i questioned efficacy of insrtalling it because of stuff you
> mentioned,
> I was told it was a solid piece of software and the problems listed herein
> were miniscule considering the number of XP users there are.
> Well, maybe the number is small (compared to millions of users) but there
> are enough problem users here to keep me away from it. I was also told the
> problems people were having were mostly due to their not 'prepping' their
> install prior to SP2..... These were people who regularly monitor some of
> these newsgroups and help people like you and I with problems; they ARE
> knowledgeable, don't misunderstand, but they are blowing smoke if they
> think
> anyone would believe SP2 is anything but a royal pain in the *ss for many
> people. And it ain't gonna go away. I am hoping for a patch for the
> patch...
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> 48.16...
>> Greetings to all!
>>
>> I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
>> users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
>> endless problems.
>>
>> 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
>> would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
>> 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
>> Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
>> 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
>> booted this time and Windows was fine.
>> 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
>> programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
>> bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
>> didn't like SP2.
>> 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
>> being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
>> 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
>> Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
>> 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
>> there could be more?
>>
>> So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
>> know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
>> that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
>>
>> I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
>> I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
>> a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
>> choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
>

[Oh_Danny_Boy]

I just don't get it, I baught my new PC in August this year, when I got it
home I updated all that needed updating and kept checking to see if new
updates (which there where) would come out then load them as well. I orderd
the SP2 CD and when it arived I sliped it in ran it and I have never had even
one glitch since doing it. Now I am not a computer IT or techy and I download
and buy all kinds of stuff because I am just crazzy I guess. But in all I
have to say that I am happy with the constant changes being made, and with
the changes comes better running PC's.
Just my oppinion.

"Sandman" wrote:

> I too, have read many of the problems people are having with SP2 and decided
> from the beginning NOT to install it, at least for now. I have it on a disc.
> When i questioned efficacy of insrtalling it because of stuff you mentioned,
> I was told it was a solid piece of software and the problems listed herein
> were miniscule considering the number of XP users there are.
> Well, maybe the number is small (compared to millions of users) but there
> are enough problem users here to keep me away from it. I was also told the
> problems people were having were mostly due to their not 'prepping' their
> install prior to SP2..... These were people who regularly monitor some of
> these newsgroups and help people like you and I with problems; they ARE
> knowledgeable, don't misunderstand, but they are blowing smoke if they think
> anyone would believe SP2 is anything but a royal pain in the *ss for many
> people. And it ain't gonna go away. I am hoping for a patch for the patch...
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> 48.16...
> > Greetings to all!
> >
> > I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
> > users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
> > endless problems.
> >
> > 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
> > would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> > 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> > Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> > 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
> > booted this time and Windows was fine.
> > 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
> > programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
> > bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> > didn't like SP2.
> > 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
> > being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> > 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> > Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> > 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> > there could be more?
> >
> > So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
> > know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
> > that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
> >
> > I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
> > I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
> > a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
> > choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
>
>

[Gary]

"I don't believe that anyone pulled your chain and forced you to purchase
XP or install SP1 or SP2"

The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 (I had SP4) or
XP. So rather than going back to SP3, I had no choice but to go to XP.
So here I was forced to make the change, and I didn't really need to. And
had to spend money for an OS I really didn't want.

One day updates from Bill Gates Inc will not run on anything but SP2. So for
those of us in the 'minority millions' that's just tough luck and choice
huh?

Let me put this in perspective of dollars......(shown in USD)

Symantec LiveState Recovery Desktop 3.0 min purchase 10 units $1800.00
Diskeeper Version 9 $50.00
Symantec AV suitable for SP2 $75.00
Symantec Firewall $75.00 or Zone Alarm for a bit cheaper..

This is beginning to look like I should be spending more time doing other
things than pay for some programmers and marketing spin doctors methods to
fleece and deceive folks. And while I'm on that topic, why should I pay for
a product that has so many bugs? Sure bug fixes come out every week, I'm
sure if GM/Ford/Boeing would subscribe to that philosophy they will have
very happy and satisfied customers too, won't they?

[Mike Hall]

Like it or not, XP SP2 is the way to go.. I installed from the downloadable
IT version on my own computers, did the same for others that I do work for,
and the people that I just could not reach in time accepted the WU version..
not one of us has any problems with SP2.. I might add that some of these
people have not reached 7th grade in computer literacy, but after basic
instruction have learned how to keep their computers 'clean'..


"Gary" > wrote in message
48.16...
> Greetings to all!
>
> I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority of
> users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have had
> endless problems.
>
> 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
> would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
> booted this time and Windows was fine.
> 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
> programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I had
> bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> didn't like SP2.
> 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both hated
> being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> there could be more?
>
> So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs i
> know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an OS,
> that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
>
> I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000, something
> I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there is
> a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
> choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
>
> Gary
>

[Ron Bogart]

In ,
Gary > did some thinking and came up with these words:
> "I don't believe that anyone pulled your chain and forced you to
> purchase XP or install SP1 or SP2"
>
> The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
> digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 (I had
> SP4) or XP. So rather than going back to SP3, I had no choice but to
> go to XP.
> So here I was forced to make the change, and I didn't really need to.
> And had to spend money for an OS I really didn't want.
>
> One day updates from Bill Gates Inc will not run on anything but SP2.
> So for those of us in the 'minority millions' that's just tough luck
> and choice huh?
>
> Let me put this in perspective of dollars......(shown in USD)
>
> Symantec LiveState Recovery Desktop 3.0 min purchase 10 units $1800.00
> Diskeeper Version 9 $50.00
> Symantec AV suitable for SP2 $75.00
> Symantec Firewall $75.00 or Zone Alarm for a bit cheaper..
>
> This is beginning to look like I should be spending more time doing
> other things than pay for some programmers and marketing spin doctors
> methods to fleece and deceive folks. And while I'm on that topic, why
> should I pay for a product that has so many bugs? Sure bug fixes come
> out every week, I'm sure if GM/Ford/Boeing would subscribe to that
> philosophy they will have very happy and satisfied customers too,
> won't they?

"The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 "

As one of the many programmers out there who take offense to your childish
diatribe - look back at what caused this for you and go complain there. It
has nothing to do with Windows - it is the slipshod vendors who provide
these "Wonder Tools" the public keeps buying and then bitching about MS when
the great new thing isn't even ready for the market much less for an up to
date OS. It rates right up there with people complaining that they have to
run as administrator to play their precious games because the game
programmers were too damn lazy to write viable and efficient code. How is
it that MS is supposed to handle all the laze, inefficient code from
everyone but nobody seems to ever bitch about the product they just bought
that is the actual cause of the problem? I guess the big target is too easy
to see so the rest of the industry gets a free ride?


--
Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
"Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Checking on Microsoft's site for incompatible software and hardware
was a good start on your part.
However your failure was expecting Microsoft to have a comprehensive
list of all compatibility issues.
If you would stop for a moment, you would realize that would be
impossible for anyone including Microsoft.
If you have software that old, you should have checked with the
manufacturer.
If the manufacturer was unavailable and/or current owner has no
information, that should have been a big clue for you.

Your problems are largely caused by your mixing hardware and software
from various generations seemingly only for economic reasons.
Perhaps if you also considered security this would not be an issue.

Most people make no changes to their computer so the mismatch such as
you have is not an issue.
They only have to worry about spyware, viruses etc while you also have
the mismatch purely due to your own choices.

No one forced you to upgrade to anything.
If you buy hardware requiring something, that is a choice you make.

Buying that digital camera was another choice you made.
The compatibility issues of that camera were also part of your choice.
Hopefully you also complain to the camera manufacturer because of
their lack of newer drivers.

The fact something worked well in the past is no guarantee they will
perform well with modern technology, or do you and your family still
drive the very modern an efficient Ford Model T?

Since you "don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2", it is
probably in your best interests in keeping a computer as bought
without any hardware changes until time to buy a new computer.
That way you will avoid many of these issues in the future.

These are all choices you make.
No one has attempted to force you to make any of the choices you
chose.

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


"Gary" > wrote in message
48.16...
> Greetings to all!
>
> I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast
> majority of
> users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself,
> have had
> endless problems.
>
> 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the
> PC
> would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine
> actually
> booted this time and Windows was fine.
> 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for
> various
> programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I
> had
> bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> didn't like SP2.
> 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both
> hated
> being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> there could be more?
>
> So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for
> programs i
> know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in
> an OS,
> that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
>
> I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000,
> something
> I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF
> there is
> a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my
> own
> choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
>
> Gary
>

Four of your first seven words sum things up quite nicely -

"I don't quite understand"

You're right ! !



>-----Original Message-----
>Greetings to all!
>
>I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a
vast majority of
>users sail through the installation, yet others, such as
myself, have had
>endless problems.
>
>1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I
rebooted, the PC
>would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
>2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with
Powerquest Drive
>Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems,
situation normal.
>3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The
machine actually
>booted this time and Windows was fine.
>4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the
compatibility for various
>programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused
problems that I had
>bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see
which one
>didn't like SP2.
>5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was
Diskeeper 5. Both hated
>being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
>6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are
NONE,
>Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is
too "old".
>7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive
programs, yet
>there could be more?
>
>So I am faced with the situation to fork out more
dollars, for programs i
>know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some
holes in an OS,
>that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet
fanny!!
>
>I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to
Windows2000, something
>I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as
well. IF there is
>a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then
it's from my own
>choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an
inferior OS.
>
>Gary
>
>.
>

[Gary]

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Checking on Microsoft's site for incompatible software and hardware
> was a good start on your part.
> However your failure was expecting Microsoft to have a comprehensive
> list of all compatibility issues.
> If you would stop for a moment, you would realize that would be
> impossible for anyone including Microsoft.
> If you have software that old, you should have checked with the
> manufacturer.

Software that old..............18 months? Is that old? 6 months, 3 days,
your definition of old is very loose.

> If the manufacturer was unavailable and/or current owner has no
> information, that should have been a big clue for you.
>
> Your problems are largely caused by your mixing hardware and software
> from various generations seemingly only for economic reasons.

A processor is faced with an instruction to do something, a video card mixes
pixels, and a keyboard draws characters on the screen. From the year one
double aught 3, computer hardware's fundamentals have remain, relatively,
unchanged, suffice some new and faster methods for making the software run
like it should, and not so slowazz.
From what you're telling me, i should have upgraded my hardware (to which
level?) to run Windows XP SP2. Twin Athlon 64's with 4GB RAM......Raid
array........Static hard disk perhaps?? A SunSparc with Windows emulator?

> Perhaps if you also considered security this would not be an issue.

Ahem, only when the hackers and secuirity experts knocked down the doors
long enough did Bill Gates realise his software was not so secure. It should
have been tight from the beginning, lord almighty, logins required
permissions so tight you can't breathe, but yet you can walk through the
door when you're on the internet.
Still SP2 is not the whole answer. Security updates are still coming, Bill
still didn't get it right.

>
> Most people make no changes to their computer so the mismatch such as
> you have is not an issue.
> They only have to worry about spyware, viruses etc while you also have
> the mismatch purely due to your own choices.
>
> No one forced you to upgrade to anything.
> If you buy hardware requiring something, that is a choice you make.
>
> Buying that digital camera was another choice you made.
> The compatibility issues of that camera were also part of your choice.
> Hopefully you also complain to the camera manufacturer because of
> their lack of newer drivers.
>
> The fact something worked well in the past is no guarantee they will
> perform well with modern technology, or do you and your family still
> drive the very modern an efficient Ford Model T?

You put bread in a toaster, switch the toaster on, set the shade you want,
the taosting sensor knows what colour you want and the toaster switches off.
Toasters wear out due to fatigue, lack of maintenenance, power supply
problems and protection systems activating. This is the model T. It toasts
bread, that's what it's meant to do, so does an oxy acetelyne torch, an
infra red oven, or even an open fire.
You may think of a PC as complex. IS it? A Boeing 747's instrumentation
system is complex and dwarfs in comparison to a PC, which is a little toy.
Many industrial processes rely on dedicated 'fit for purpose' PLC's which do
the job of supervising complex, for example, chemical processes. PC's are
used as a window only to this process to show the operators the status of
the plant. I don't know of anybody taking a risk and controlling a whole
plant from a PC only. Oh, 'excuse me mr plant president, Windows needs a new
Service PAck, and I need to shut down the plant for an hour while Windows
decides to screw itself up totally and send all our workers home'. Yes, i
can see that happening for sure.

>
> Since you "don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2", it is
> probably in your best interests in keeping a computer as bought
> without any hardware changes until time to buy a new computer.
> That way you will avoid many of these issues in the future.
>
> These are all choices you make.
> No one has attempted to force you to make any of the choices you
> chose.
>

I usually have respect for people with credentials, and listen to what MVP's
have to say. In your case, with respect, you're not seeing what problems can
occur and insist that I have made the wrong choices. Where is this written,
in the "PC for dummies book" ?

Choices that I make, have associated risk, the risk of programs not working,
or not living up to the expectations of the hype they are given. That is no
choice at all, that is risk. Every time anybody in the world installs a
program or a piece of hardware, the choice is removed and the risk is set
in.
Any EULA absolves the software manufacturer from any liability and leaves
the risk of running the program to the user. In many cases, countless hours
are wasted since the customer purchased a piece of software, "made a choice"
and took the risk, and it blew up in their face.

And.........where is the "sp2" for Windows2000/Pro/Server.......? This OS is
still supported, where are the major security updates for this OS?
_________________ << the sounds of silence.

> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> 48.16...
> > Greetings to all!
> >
> > I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast
> > majority of
> > users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself,
> > have had
> > endless problems.
> >
> > 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the
> > PC
> > would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> > 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> > Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> > 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine
> > actually
> > booted this time and Windows was fine.
> > 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for
> > various
> > programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I
> > had
> > bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> > didn't like SP2.
> > 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both
> > hated
> > being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> > 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> > Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> > 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> > there could be more?
> >
> > So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for
> > programs i
> > know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in
> > an OS,
> > that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
> >
> > I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000,
> > something
> > I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF
> > there is
> > a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my
> > own
> > choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
>

[Gary]

And you do?
Please tell us all then.

> wrote in message
...
> Four of your first seven words sum things up quite nicely -
>
> "I don't quite understand"
>
> You're right ! !
>
>

[Gary]

and Selzer is ........?

His credentials say he's not an employee of Microsoft. If he doesn't work
for Microsoft, then he has an opinion to offer only. Whether it be accurate
or fantasy who can tell? It's like Fred Flintstone commenting on George W's
colour of tie he chose for the day.

Thanks for the link and have a look at the responses to the article. Yes I
have many clues now, and confirms what I experienced.

"Kip Kniskern" > wrote in message
...
> Check out this article from eWeek's Larry Seltzer
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1724107,00.asp
>
> and get a clue.....
>
> kip
>
>
>
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I too, have read many of the problems people are having with SP2 and
> >decided
> > from the beginning NOT to install it, at least for now. I have it on a
> > disc.
> > When i questioned efficacy of insrtalling it because of stuff you
> > mentioned,
> > I was told it was a solid piece of software and the problems listed
herein
> > were miniscule considering the number of XP users there are.
> > Well, maybe the number is small (compared to millions of users) but
there
> > are enough problem users here to keep me away from it. I was also told
the
> > problems people were having were mostly due to their not 'prepping'
their
> > install prior to SP2..... These were people who regularly monitor some
of
> > these newsgroups and help people like you and I with problems; they ARE
> > knowledgeable, don't misunderstand, but they are blowing smoke if they
> > think
> > anyone would believe SP2 is anything but a royal pain in the *ss for
many
> > people. And it ain't gonna go away. I am hoping for a patch for the
> > patch...
> > "Gary" > wrote in message
> > 48.16...
> >> Greetings to all!
> >>
> >> I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast majority
of
> >> users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself, have
had
> >> endless problems.
> >>
> >> 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted, the PC
> >> would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
> >> 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest Drive
> >> Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation normal.
> >> 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine actually
> >> booted this time and Windows was fine.
> >> 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for various
> >> programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems that I
had
> >> bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which one
> >> didn't like SP2.
> >> 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5. Both
hated
> >> being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
> >> 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
> >> Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too "old".
> >> 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs, yet
> >> there could be more?
> >>
> >> So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for programs
i
> >> know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes in an
OS,
> >> that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
> >>
> >> I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000,
something
> >> I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF there
is
> >> a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from my own
> >> choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Gary]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your measured reply. The response fails to comprehend, the
software did work on SP1 , and worked well. Microsoft moved the goal posts
with SP2.

I'm sure that when you wrote code for an OS as part of programming, it was
written for the current code and build of Windows at the time (and/or
perhaps some older OS variants) and you thoroughly tested that code to run
and it should have run successfully when the customer installed the program
at their own risk.
I'm also sure you would have included provisions to allow for strengthened
security code that was going to be introduced with SP2, didn't you? Well,
why not?

>
> As one of the many programmers out there who take offense to your childish
> diatribe - look back at what caused this for you and go complain there.
It
> has nothing to do with Windows - it is the slipshod vendors who provide
> these "Wonder Tools" the public keeps buying and then bitching about MS
when
> the great new thing isn't even ready for the market much less for an up to
> date OS. It rates right up there with people complaining that they have
to
> run as administrator to play their precious games because the game
> programmers were too damn lazy to write viable and efficient code. How is
> it that MS is supposed to handle all the laze, inefficient code from
> everyone but nobody seems to ever bitch about the product they just bought
> that is the actual cause of the problem? I guess the big target is too
easy
> to see so the rest of the industry gets a free ride?
>
>
> --
> Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> "Life is what happens while we are making other plans."
>
>

[Ron Bogart]

In ,
Gary > did some thinking and came up with these words:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Thank you for your measured reply. The response fails to comprehend,
> the software did work on SP1 , and worked well. Microsoft moved the
> goal posts with SP2.
>
> I'm sure that when you wrote code for an OS as part of programming,
> it was written for the current code and build of Windows at the time
> (and/or perhaps some older OS variants) and you thoroughly tested
> that code to run and it should have run successfully when the
> customer installed the program at their own risk.
> I'm also sure you would have included provisions to allow for
> strengthened security code that was going to be introduced with SP2,
> didn't you? Well, why not?
>
>>
>> As one of the many programmers out there who take offense to your
>> childish diatribe - look back at what caused this for you and go
>> complain there. It has nothing to do with Windows - it is the
>> slipshod vendors who provide these "Wonder Tools" the public keeps
>> buying and then bitching about MS when the great new thing isn't
>> even ready for the market much less for an up to date OS. It rates
>> right up there with people complaining that they have to run as
>> administrator to play their precious games because the game
>> programmers were too damn lazy to write viable and efficient code.
>> How is it that MS is supposed to handle all the laze, inefficient
>> code from everyone but nobody seems to ever bitch about the product
>> they just bought that is the actual cause of the problem? I guess
>> the big target is too easy to see so the rest of the industry gets a
>> free ride?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
>> Associate Expert
>> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> "Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

Hi Gary - some good points and some not so good. Did you go to the Site for
this Camera and see if they have an upgrade? No matter what finger you want
to point - it should be pointed to the owner of the product. If they
designed it for Win2000 or WinXP and it doesn't work in XP SP2, then an
upgrade or patch from them needs to be applied. If *they* don't want to
support their product past the original environment they originally sold it
for - then you need to get with them for a replacement or return. Windows
doesn't automagically assume the liability for every product in the
marketplace. Product support is the Seller's liability and as the
environment changes, they either support it or it stops selling - it's a
fact of life for a vendor if they expect to survive in the business world.

--
Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
"Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

[Bruce Chambers]

Gary wrote:

>
> The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
> digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 (I had SP4) or
> XP. So rather than going back to SP3, I had no choice but to go to XP.
> So here I was forced to make the change, and I didn't really need to. And
> had to spend money for an OS I really didn't want.
>

Oh, please.... All you needed to have done in the first place was to
have looked at the system requirements of that camera _before_ making
the purchase, and then moved on to looking for a model compatible with
Win2K SP4. You were "forced" to upgrade *only* buy your own poor
planning and shopping skills. (And who prevented you from returning the
camera when you finally decided to check its OS-compatibility?) No one
but you bears any responsibility for the consequences of your own
carelessness/haste/ineptitude.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

[Bruce Chambers]

Gary wrote:

>
>
> Software that old..............18 months? Is that old? 6 months, 3 days,
> your definition of old is very loose.
>
>
>

Never heard of "Moore's Law?" In computer terms, it means that 18
months is an entire generation. So, yes, 18-month-old software, if its
developers were not careful and pro-active, could indeed be obsolete.
You also need to measure the "age" of an application from the date it
went gold, not from the time - possibily months or years later - that
you purchased it. Anything specifically written for Win2K SP3 would be
rather dated, as WinXP has been on the market in excess of two years, now.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

[Mike Hall]

Gary

You have been correctly identified as a troll.. if you feel that MS is
short-changing you in some way, e-mail the camera manufacturer and ask for
software compatible with Linux.. I feel sure that you will 'troll' well in
Linux newsgroups..

Good luck with the OS switch..

Mike Hall


"Gary" > wrote in message
...
> And you do?
> Please tell us all then.
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Four of your first seven words sum things up quite nicely -
>>
>> "I don't quite understand"
>>
>> You're right ! !
>>
>>
>
>

[Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)]

Gary wrote:

> "I don't believe that anyone pulled your chain and forced you to purchase
> XP or install SP1 or SP2"
>
> The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
> digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 (I had SP4) or
> XP. So rather than going back to SP3, I had no choice but to go to XP.
> So here I was forced to make the change, and I didn't really need to. And
> had to spend money for an OS I really didn't want.
>
> One day updates from Bill Gates Inc will not run on anything but SP2.
Hi

Microsoft's mainstream support for Windows XP SP1 ends 17-Sep-2006,
while it ends 30-Jun-2005 for Windows 2000 SP3/SP4.

In this perspective it is better to install WinXP SP1 than Win2k.

Then, enabling the builtin firewall in WinXP SP1 (or installing a 3rd
party firewall), and switch to another internet browser than IE, and
keeping up to date with security updates, you are in pretty good
shape regarding security.


--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx

[Kingerzville]

Not a great reply...two totally different things.

Win 2000 was the first OS MS actually had close to being right. Compare that
to a nice Volvo (nothing flashy...but stable, reliable, runs well, low
maintenance). XP comes out flashy but with huge security issues and MS
decides to force users to "upgrade" to what has been proven to be inferior
software. That's not an oil change, that's getting screwed by a used car
salesman in a plaid sport coat.

"S.Sengupta" wrote:

> Great reply.:o)
>
> regards,
> ssg MS-MVP
>
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>
> > Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >

[Gary]

Finally a constructive reply, thank you for your input.

As for the rest of you morons in this thread, enjoy your life in your own
little world decorating daisies and buttercups.



"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" > wrote in message
...
> Gary wrote:
>
> > "I don't believe that anyone pulled your chain and forced you to
purchase
> > XP or install SP1 or SP2"
> >
> > The reason I installed XP in the first place was that the software for
> > digital camera I bought would only run on Windows 2000 SP3 (I had SP4)
or
> > XP. So rather than going back to SP3, I had no choice but to go to XP.
> > So here I was forced to make the change, and I didn't really need to.
And
> > had to spend money for an OS I really didn't want.
> >
> > One day updates from Bill Gates Inc will not run on anything but SP2.
> Hi
>
> Microsoft's mainstream support for Windows XP SP1 ends 17-Sep-2006,
> while it ends 30-Jun-2005 for Windows 2000 SP3/SP4.
>
> In this perspective it is better to install WinXP SP1 than Win2k.
>
> Then, enabling the builtin firewall in WinXP SP1 (or installing a 3rd
> party firewall), and switch to another internet browser than IE, and
> keeping up to date with security updates, you are in pretty good
> shape regarding security.
>
>
> --
> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx

[David H. Lipman]

You don't get it.

An automobile -- a mechanical system
A computer -- a computing system

To maintain your auto you change the oil, put air in the tires, etc, etc.
To maintain a computing platform you install HotFixes and Service Packs, run disk
defragmenters, etc, etc.

It is as simple as that.

Dave



"Kingerzville" > wrote in message
...
| Not a great reply...two totally different things.
|
| Win 2000 was the first OS MS actually had close to being right. Compare that
| to a nice Volvo (nothing flashy...but stable, reliable, runs well, low
| maintenance). XP comes out flashy but with huge security issues and MS
| decides to force users to "upgrade" to what has been proven to be inferior
| software. That's not an oil change, that's getting screwed by a used car
| salesman in a plaid sport coat.
|
| "S.Sengupta" wrote:
|
| > Great reply.:o)
| >
| > regards,
| > ssg MS-MVP
| >
| > David H. Lipman wrote:
| >
| > > Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
| > >
| > > Dave
| > >
| > >
|

[Mike Hall]

"Leythos" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Gary
>>
>> You have been correctly identified as a troll.. if you feel that MS is
>> short-changing you in some way, e-mail the camera manufacturer and ask
>> for
>> software compatible with Linux.. I feel sure that you will 'troll' well
>> in
>> Linux newsgroups..
>
> I found him to be trolling too - and he's not very good at it. A
> educated troll can keep people going for weeks without an indication
> that they are trolling. There are trolls in the Linux groups too :)
>
>
Looks like there could be another very soon.. he will be in good company..

[Gary]

Computers and cars are products, consumable items. One of them can actually
produce some fun, the other is a huge pain in the ass.

If software was written correctly, you wouldn't need to defrag, install
hotfixes or Service packs.
Service packs and Hotfixes are avoiding a 'total recall' in the analogy of
motor vehicle. These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster
as a result of these patches....no, do your applications go
faster....no.........improvements to applications.....try another vendor eg
IE vs mozilla/Firefox la la la.
When people write code and sales push delivery for a product to be released,
you will always have errors caused by compromise. It's a matter of balance
on how much income is derived from the least amount of effort, and how much
the customer can afford to take the risk of accepting a compromise.
Windows has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. Consumers are so fed up
with the current Windows, they can't wait for an improvement to come out,
hence so much anticipation when a new OS is released. Enterprise couldn't
care less about new releases, they are struggling to keep up with the old OS
and fixes for that!

If patches are delivered, it means 'gee, we really did a good job at fixing
that problem' and we are the good guys for giving it away for free and the
world will be a better place. Pfffft. Blow the other horn.

"David H. Lipman" > wrote in message
...
> You don't get it.
>
> An automobile -- a mechanical system
> A computer -- a computing system
>
> To maintain your auto you change the oil, put air in the tires, etc, etc.
> To maintain a computing platform you install HotFixes and Service Packs,
run disk
> defragmenters, etc, etc.
>
> It is as simple as that.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Kingerzville" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Not a great reply...two totally different things.
> |
> | Win 2000 was the first OS MS actually had close to being right. Compare
that
> | to a nice Volvo (nothing flashy...but stable, reliable, runs well, low
> | maintenance). XP comes out flashy but with huge security issues and MS
> | decides to force users to "upgrade" to what has been proven to be
inferior
> | software. That's not an oil change, that's getting screwed by a used car
> | salesman in a plaid sport coat.
> |
> | "S.Sengupta" wrote:
> |
> | > Great reply.:o)
> | >
> | > regards,
> | > ssg MS-MVP
> | >
> | > David H. Lipman wrote:
> | >
> | > > Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
> | > >
> | > > Dave
> | > >
> | > >
> |
>
>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

8 months can be very old for technology, especially if updating one
component and ignoring others.

You can update your computer as you want, mine are a mix of old and
new, but I take responsibility and do what I can to keep it all
compatible.
That is the choice I make to keep them working, and they do.

If you think "Bill still didn't get it right", you have other options
to choose.
If you choose to stay with Windows, take responsibility for that
choice and do what is necessary.

You comparison of a computer and a 747 is totally irrelevant unless
you are advocating similar levels of regulations governing the
maintenance and use of your computer.
Right now you can do anything you want with no fear of regulations.
Then you can blame Microsoft because you have incompatible older
components.

Lastly perhaps this question by you is indicative of the information
you have:
"where is the "sp2" for Windows2000/Pro/Server.......? This OS is
still supported, where are the major security updates for this OS?"
The silence you hear may be because almost everyone but you already
knows SP-2 is so old, SP-4 is now current:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

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


"Gary" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Checking on Microsoft's site for incompatible software and hardware
>> was a good start on your part.
>> However your failure was expecting Microsoft to have a
>> comprehensive
>> list of all compatibility issues.
>> If you would stop for a moment, you would realize that would be
>> impossible for anyone including Microsoft.
>> If you have software that old, you should have checked with the
>> manufacturer.
>
> Software that old..............18 months? Is that old? 6 months, 3
> days,
> your definition of old is very loose.
>
>> If the manufacturer was unavailable and/or current owner has no
>> information, that should have been a big clue for you.
>>
>> Your problems are largely caused by your mixing hardware and
>> software
>> from various generations seemingly only for economic reasons.
>
> A processor is faced with an instruction to do something, a video
> card mixes
> pixels, and a keyboard draws characters on the screen. From the year
> one
> double aught 3, computer hardware's fundamentals have remain,
> relatively,
> unchanged, suffice some new and faster methods for making the
> software run
> like it should, and not so slowazz.
> From what you're telling me, i should have upgraded my hardware (to
> which
> level?) to run Windows XP SP2. Twin Athlon 64's with 4GB
> RAM......Raid
> array........Static hard disk perhaps?? A SunSparc with Windows
> emulator?
>
>> Perhaps if you also considered security this would not be an issue.
>
> Ahem, only when the hackers and secuirity experts knocked down the
> doors
> long enough did Bill Gates realise his software was not so secure.
> It should
> have been tight from the beginning, lord almighty, logins required
> permissions so tight you can't breathe, but yet you can walk through
> the
> door when you're on the internet.
> Still SP2 is not the whole answer. Security updates are still
> coming, Bill
> still didn't get it right.
>
>>
>> Most people make no changes to their computer so the mismatch such
>> as
>> you have is not an issue.
>> They only have to worry about spyware, viruses etc while you also
>> have
>> the mismatch purely due to your own choices.
>>
>> No one forced you to upgrade to anything.
>> If you buy hardware requiring something, that is a choice you make.
>>
>> Buying that digital camera was another choice you made.
>> The compatibility issues of that camera were also part of your
>> choice.
>> Hopefully you also complain to the camera manufacturer because of
>> their lack of newer drivers.
>>
>> The fact something worked well in the past is no guarantee they
>> will
>> perform well with modern technology, or do you and your family
>> still
>> drive the very modern an efficient Ford Model T?
>
> You put bread in a toaster, switch the toaster on, set the shade
> you want,
> the taosting sensor knows what colour you want and the toaster
> switches off.
> Toasters wear out due to fatigue, lack of maintenenance, power
> supply
> problems and protection systems activating. This is the model T. It
> toasts
> bread, that's what it's meant to do, so does an oxy acetelyne torch,
> an
> infra red oven, or even an open fire.
> You may think of a PC as complex. IS it? A Boeing 747's
> instrumentation
> system is complex and dwarfs in comparison to a PC, which is a
> little toy.
> Many industrial processes rely on dedicated 'fit for purpose' PLC's
> which do
> the job of supervising complex, for example, chemical processes.
> PC's are
> used as a window only to this process to show the operators the
> status of
> the plant. I don't know of anybody taking a risk and controlling a
> whole
> plant from a PC only. Oh, 'excuse me mr plant president, Windows
> needs a new
> Service PAck, and I need to shut down the plant for an hour while
> Windows
> decides to screw itself up totally and send all our workers home'.
> Yes, i
> can see that happening for sure.
>
>>
>> Since you "don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2", it
>> is
>> probably in your best interests in keeping a computer as bought
>> without any hardware changes until time to buy a new computer.
>> That way you will avoid many of these issues in the future.
>>
>> These are all choices you make.
>> No one has attempted to force you to make any of the choices you
>> chose.
>>
>
> I usually have respect for people with credentials, and listen to
> what MVP's
> have to say. In your case, with respect, you're not seeing what
> problems can
> occur and insist that I have made the wrong choices. Where is this
> written,
> in the "PC for dummies book" ?
>
> Choices that I make, have associated risk, the risk of programs not
> working,
> or not living up to the expectations of the hype they are given.
> That is no
> choice at all, that is risk. Every time anybody in the world
> installs a
> program or a piece of hardware, the choice is removed and the risk
> is set
> in.
> Any EULA absolves the software manufacturer from any liability and
> leaves
> the risk of running the program to the user. In many cases,
> countless hours
> are wasted since the customer purchased a piece of software, "made a
> choice"
> and took the risk, and it blew up in their face.
>
> And.........where is the "sp2" for Windows2000/Pro/Server.......?
> This OS is
> still supported, where are the major security updates for this OS?
> _________________ << the sounds of silence.
>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Gary" > wrote in message
>> 48.16...
>> > Greetings to all!
>> >
>> > I don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2, a vast
>> > majority of
>> > users sail through the installation, yet others, such as myself,
>> > have had
>> > endless problems.
>> >
>> > 1. The in situ upgrade from SP1 to SP2 failed. When I rebooted,
>> > the
>> > PC
>> > would not go past the BIOS boot up stage to Windows.
>> > 2. I restored the whole old OS, programs et al with Powerquest
>> > Drive
>> > Image to SP1 again to a blank disk. No problems, situation
>> > normal.
>> > 3. Zero filled the C Drive and slipstreamed SP2. The machine
>> > actually
>> > booted this time and Windows was fine.
>> > 4. Prior to all this install, i looked at the compatibility for
>> > various
>> > programs on the MS site, and no programs that caused problems
>> > that I
>> > had
>> > bought were listed, so I installed them one by one to see which
>> > one
>> > didn't like SP2.
>> > 5. Powerquest Drive image was one, the other was Diskeeper 5.
>> > Both
>> > hated
>> > being on SP2, caused freezes, slow responses and so on.
>> > 6. Looked at SP2 fixes for both these programs, there are NONE,
>> > Powerquest is now owned by Symantec, and Diskeeper 5 is too
>> > "old".
>> > 7. This means upgrading , that is to BUY NEW expensive programs,
>> > yet
>> > there could be more?
>> >
>> > So I am faced with the situation to fork out more dollars, for
>> > programs i
>> > know have worked fine since Windows2000 & SP1 to fix some holes
>> > in
>> > an OS,
>> > that should have been plugged long ago? Not on your sweet fanny!!
>> >
>> > I've thrown XP PRO in the trash, and went back to Windows2000,
>> > something
>> > I know works and the programs I paid for work on it as well. IF
>> > there is
>> > a significant reason for me to upgrade programs, then it's from
>> > my
>> > own
>> > choice, and not to be dictated and enforced by an inferior OS.
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Gary]

>
> Lastly perhaps this question by you is indicative of the information
> you have:
> "where is the "sp2" for Windows2000/Pro/Server.......? This OS is
> still supported, where are the major security updates for this OS?"
> The silence you hear may be because almost everyone but you already
> knows SP-2 is so old, SP-4 is now current:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
You misunderstood. Is the same level of security fixes et al with XP Sp2
also available for Windows 2000?

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I am not really familiar with those although I have used them.
However if what you want or need is in Windows XP, perhaps you really
need Windows XP.

Windows XP is getting old, but Windows 2000 is twice as old.

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


"Gary" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Lastly perhaps this question by you is indicative of the
>> information
>> you have:
>> "where is the "sp2" for Windows2000/Pro/Server.......? This OS is
>> still supported, where are the major security updates for this OS?"
>> The silence you hear may be because almost everyone but you already
>> knows SP-2 is so old, SP-4 is now current:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
> You misunderstood. Is the same level of security fixes et al with XP
> Sp2
> also available for Windows 2000?
>
>

[Gary]

Another poster advised that support for Windows 2000 will run out in June
2005. Microsoft will in all likelihood not release such a service pack given
the time period of the product's eventual demise.

I found a solution to the Powerquest Drive Image 7 working with XP SP2. The
version I bought btw was purchased in March 2004, from Symantec. Symantec
have released Norton Ghost 9, which I suspect is the same product heritage
as Drive image 7.
Essentially, if Drive image 7 is installed on top of XP SP2, Drive image
will not work. The application must be removed as well as SP2, Windows clean
booted, then both drive image and SP2 reinstalled.
Symantec Document ID:2004111516343862 Last Modified:30/11/2004

Makes for a fun afternoon.

> The silence you hear may be because almost everyone but you already
> knows SP-2 is so old, SP-4 is now current:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx
>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Gary;
Information on product lifecycles:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

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


"Gary" > wrote in message
...
> Another poster advised that support for Windows 2000 will run out in
> June
> 2005. Microsoft will in all likelihood not release such a service
> pack given
> the time period of the product's eventual demise.
>
> I found a solution to the Powerquest Drive Image 7 working with XP
> SP2. The
> version I bought btw was purchased in March 2004, from Symantec.
> Symantec
> have released Norton Ghost 9, which I suspect is the same product
> heritage
> as Drive image 7.
> Essentially, if Drive image 7 is installed on top of XP SP2, Drive
> image
> will not work. The application must be removed as well as SP2,
> Windows clean
> booted, then both drive image and SP2 reinstalled.
> Symantec Document ID:2004111516343862 Last Modified:30/11/2004
>
> Makes for a fun afternoon.

[Gary]

This is also to that clown Leythos.

Can't you picture these two beer belly proud dorks commenting on how well a
fly is climbing up their glass of Budweiser, in the meantime a dog craps on
their shoe and they wonder why the beer smells so much better now.......

Be observant and

http://www.sun.com/2004-1130/feature/

while you're on the subject of an alternative OS which you commented on.

"Mike Hall" > wrote in message
...
> Gary
>
> You have been correctly identified as a troll.. if you feel that MS is
> short-changing you in some way, e-mail the camera manufacturer and ask for
> software compatible with Linux.. I feel sure that you will 'troll' well in
> Linux newsgroups..
>
> Good luck with the OS switch..
>
> Mike Hall
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And you do?
> > Please tell us all then.
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Four of your first seven words sum things up quite nicely -
> >>
> >> "I don't quite understand"
> >>
> >> You're right ! !
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[David H. Lipman]

OK - I see you don't grasp the comparative models.

Do you blame the manufacturer of tires because after 20K miles the tire are wearing down ?

In the mechanical system of an automobile, there is friction taking its course all of the
system. This friction causes wear.
Comparably, using a computer has a wear and tear factor as well. Data on hard disks will
become fragmented (there are NO operating systems don't suffer from data fragmentation or
memory fragmentation as a function of time, NONE), DLLs can get replaced or be put in the
"path" causing errors, the Registry will get bloated, etc.

All systems will suffer some form of chaotic behaviour due to the "Chaos and Complex
Systems" postulate and it makes no difference if it is a mechanical system or a computing
system.

As for your statement -- "One of them can actually produce some fun, the other is a huge
pain in the ass."
That is true for both. A car can be a lot of fun. I can cruise the highways, go to the
beach, go to the mountains, see the sights. However, if I have an auto with a problem such
as a radiator hose with a thin wall, I could end up at the side of the road in nowheresville
with a PITA. Likewise, I can have fun with a computer cruising the Internet, seeing the
sights, playing games or writing a thesis or balancing a budget. However, a maintenance
problem, not unlike the radiator hose, can side line my use of the computer. The RPC/RPCSS
DCOM Buffer Overflow problem and its side effects are comparable to a broken radiator hose.
They both will side line my fun and cause a PITA.

I brought up the Chaos and Complex Systems postulate because given any set of circumstances
in a complex system chaos will be the outcome. Both computers and automobiles are complex
systems. They both are a system in total and have multiple subsystems providing particular
functions The both have dependencies and interdependencies. If I disrupt an
interdependencies and in some way there will be ripple effects up and down the whole system.

You also stated -- "...These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster as a
result of these patches...."
No. Just like when you replace an alternator in a automobile, your automobile won't go
faster. You fixed the system, not upgraded it. If you add more RAM and put in a new CPU
then you will go faster. Similarly, if you put in a new carburetor or fuel injection system
and changed the exhaust and/or bored out the cylinders the automobile will go faster.

I'm truly sorry that you don't grasp the reality of the concept nor the reality of the
situation. I have tried to boil it down to a simple model and show you that problems are
inevitable. However, the human factor can increase the probability of failure in the
system.

I doubt that I have really totally enlightened you but I hope I have installed a small
understanding that will eventually lead to a fuller understanding of overarching concept.

Dave




"Gary" > wrote in message
...
| Computers and cars are products, consumable items. One of them can actually
| produce some fun, the other is a huge pain in the ass.
|
| If software was written correctly, you wouldn't need to defrag, install
| hotfixes or Service packs.
| Service packs and Hotfixes are avoiding a 'total recall' in the analogy of
| motor vehicle. These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster
| as a result of these patches....no, do your applications go
| faster....no.........improvements to applications.....try another vendor eg
| IE vs mozilla/Firefox la la la.
| When people write code and sales push delivery for a product to be released,
| you will always have errors caused by compromise. It's a matter of balance
| on how much income is derived from the least amount of effort, and how much
| the customer can afford to take the risk of accepting a compromise.
| Windows has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. Consumers are so fed up
| with the current Windows, they can't wait for an improvement to come out,
| hence so much anticipation when a new OS is released. Enterprise couldn't
| care less about new releases, they are struggling to keep up with the old OS
| and fixes for that!
|
| If patches are delivered, it means 'gee, we really did a good job at fixing
| that problem' and we are the good guys for giving it away for free and the
| world will be a better place. Pfffft. Blow the other horn.
|
| "David H. Lipman" > wrote in message
| ...
| > You don't get it.
| >
| > An automobile -- a mechanical system
| > A computer -- a computing system
| >
| > To maintain your auto you change the oil, put air in the tires, etc, etc.
| > To maintain a computing platform you install HotFixes and Service Packs,
| run disk
| > defragmenters, etc, etc.
| >
| > It is as simple as that.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > "Kingerzville" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | Not a great reply...two totally different things.
| > |
| > | Win 2000 was the first OS MS actually had close to being right. Compare
| that
| > | to a nice Volvo (nothing flashy...but stable, reliable, runs well, low
| > | maintenance). XP comes out flashy but with huge security issues and MS
| > | decides to force users to "upgrade" to what has been proven to be
| inferior
| > | software. That's not an oil change, that's getting screwed by a used car
| > | salesman in a plaid sport coat.
| > |
| > | "S.Sengupta" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Great reply.:o)
| > | >
| > | > regards,
| > | > ssg MS-MVP
| > | >
| > | > David H. Lipman wrote:
| > | >
| > | > > Automobile oil change -- Why bother ?
| > | > >
| > | > > Dave
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[David H. Lipman]

Here's where you are off-base. Leythos is a highly intelligent knowledgeable person. You
need to learn from him -- not call him a "clown".

Based upon what I have seen emanate from his fingertips, he is far from being a "clown" as
you so wrongly called him.

Dave



"Gary" > wrote in message ...
| This is also to that clown Leythos.
|
| Can't you picture these two beer belly proud dorks commenting on how well a
| fly is climbing up their glass of Budweiser, in the meantime a dog craps on
| their shoe and they wonder why the beer smells so much better now.......
|
| Be observant and
|
| http://www.sun.com/2004-1130/feature/
|
| while you're on the subject of an alternative OS which you commented on.
|
| "Mike Hall" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Gary
| >
| > You have been correctly identified as a troll.. if you feel that MS is
| > short-changing you in some way, e-mail the camera manufacturer and ask for
| > software compatible with Linux.. I feel sure that you will 'troll' well in
| > Linux newsgroups..
| >
| > Good luck with the OS switch..
| >
| > Mike Hall
| >
| >
| > "Gary" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > > And you do?
| > > Please tell us all then.
| > >
| > > > wrote in message
| > > ...
| > >> Four of your first seven words sum things up quite nicely -
| > >>
| > >> "I don't quite understand"
| > >>
| > >> You're right ! !
| > >>
| > >>
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|

[Mike Hall]

"Gary" > wrote in message
...
> Computers and cars are products, consumable items..


Who ever said that you can't learn something new every day..


>One of them can actually produce some fun, the other is a huge pain in the
>ass.


There is no documemtation that can uphold this statement..


>
> If software was written correctly, you wouldn't need to defrag, install
> hotfixes or Service packs.
> Service packs and Hotfixes are avoiding a 'total recall' in the analogy of
> motor vehicle. These are all patches to fix errors. Does your PC go faster
> as a result of these patches....no, do your applications go
> faster....no.........improvements to applications.....try another vendor
> eg
> IE vs mozilla/Firefox la la la.


Completely untrue.. the very nature of editable files makes defrag a
necessity at some point.. there is not one product out there that is
expected to do as many and varied tasks where there is little or no control
over the hardware that is used.. Mac users buy a computer and just use it..
pc buyers are never content, and are constantly cobbling parts together..
where they get the idea that MS is responsible for any of it beats the hell
out of me.. we do not have the right to expect MS to second guess and
produce one platform that will work flawlessly on hardware configurations
that are anything but flawless..

Patches and hotfixes are sent out in an attempt to beat those who seek to
bring down MS, its operating system, and users of the same.. if these jerks
were to stop trying to find every little hole and they quit exploiting the
holes with malicious code, patches and hotfixes would almost cease over
night..


> When people write code and sales push delivery for a product to be
> released,
> you will always have errors caused by compromise. It's a matter of balance
> on how much income is derived from the least amount of effort, and how
> much
> the customer can afford to take the risk of accepting a compromise.


I like that.. 'income derived from the least amount of effort'.. what many
employees of companies dream about and some turn into reality.. isn't this
the reason for any shoddy goods regardless of who makes them.. bad design,
no proper testing, incorrect materials used in an attempt to save money,
assembly workers who don't give a rat's anything for quality control.. ever
heard of 'Friday specials'?.. ask any GM or Ford worker about them..



> Windows has never been perfect, nor will it ever be. Consumers are so fed
> up
> with the current Windows, they can't wait for an improvement to come out,
> hence so much anticipation when a new OS is released. Enterprise couldn't
> care less about new releases, they are struggling to keep up with the old
> OS
> and fixes for that!



Some consumers are fed up with XP.. there are probably fed up with their
popup bread toaster too because the steaks keep sticking to the sides and
will not pop up at all.. happiness with a product is determined by one's
ability to understand the product and its limitations.. it is not the fault
of the computer and software manufacturers that the technology gets into the
hands of people who have little clue, any more than GM, Ford and DC have
control over people buying SUVs and driving them like they are a Ferrari..
and of course Enterprise needs to care about new releases.. industry would
all but disappear without new releases..



>
> If patches are delivered, it means 'gee, we really did a good job at
> fixing
> that problem' and we are the good guys for giving it away for free and the
> world will be a better place. Pfffft. Blow the other horn.


There was a time when one had to wait for the next release and PAY for it..
MS sends out free patches to help users combat the daily fight against those
people whose only reason for life is to Bring any MS operating system to its
knees.. if Linux was the leading OS, you would be posting your ill-conceived
drivel in a Linux newsgroup..



A question for you.. if Linux was the leading OS, which of the companies
that release versions would you blame, and why?

And if you really believe that MS OSes are inferior products, go to Linux
newsgroups and take a look.. problems problems problems.. and percentage
wise, there are not too many people using it yet..


Happy trolling, Gary


>

[Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)]

Gary wrote:

> Another poster advised that support for Windows 2000 will run out
> in June 2005. Microsoft will in all likelihood not release such a
> service pack given the time period of the product's eventual demise.
Hi

Correct. Microsoft have stated that SP4 was the last service pack
for Win2k, there will not be a SP5.


--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx