Cleanup after SP2 install [Archive]

George Hester

December 10th 04, 04:32 AM

There is a whole folder under C:\Windows called ServicePackFiles and in =
that are many updated files that you
might need at a later date. I say "might" because I don't want to cause =
a flame. In truth you HAVE to have those
files. So this is definitely not one of those "junk" that can or should =
be removed. This is all that is left behind by
the Service Pack upgrade besides the actual replaced files and the =
archive if you chose to do that. The archive
allows you to revert back to the way the system was prior to installing =
the Service Pack. But in truth if you
attempted to do that the system would be left in a precarious postion. =
Not one I'd want to administer that's for
sure. So the archive is one likely candidate for removal because its =
utuility is questionable. A complete re-install
would be more appropriate if the Service Pack install was failing you.

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"SK" > wrote in message =
...
> New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am told
> that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk left on
> the HD that should manually be removed to get space back. =20
>=20
> I don't really need the space but I do like to run a tight/clean
> ship....
>=20
> Any info on this?
>=20
> Regards,
> SK

Monique Jean-Pierre

December 10th 04, 06:25 AM

"SK" > wrote in message
...
> New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am told
> that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk left on
> the HD

Yes, SP2 turns many programs on the hard drive at the time of installation
into useless junk. You need to reformat the hard drive after installation of
SP2 and reinstall XP -- WITHOUT SP2.

Michael Stevens

December 10th 04, 06:48 AM

SK wrote:
> New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am told
> that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk left on
> the HD that should manually be removed to get space back.
>
> I don't really need the space but I do like to run a tight/clean
> ship....
>
> Any info on this?
>
> Regards,
> SK

Look for the tidying up link.
http://michaelstevenstech.com

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 10th 04, 08:16 AM

Primarily true only for the uninformed and ignorant.

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

"Monique Jean-Pierre" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, SP2 turns many programs on the hard drive at the time of installation
> into useless junk. You need to reformat the hard drive after installation
> of
> SP2 and reinstall XP -- WITHOUT SP2.

Alex Nichol

December 10th 04, 04:38 PM

SK wrote:

>New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am told
>that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk left on
>the HD that should manually be removed to get space back.

See the Tidying up topic at Installing SP2:
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Plato

December 10th 04, 05:41 PM

SK wrote:
>
> I don't really need the space but I do like to run a tight/clean
> ship....

Too bad you're not an oil ship captian as in the last week two oil
ships, one on the Delaware River in NJ and one in Alaska have cracked
and spilled.

Ken Blake

December 10th 04, 07:58 PM

In ,
Monique Jean-Pierre > typed:

> "SK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am
>> told
>> that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk
>> left on
>> the HD
>
> Yes, SP2 turns many programs on the hard drive at the time of
> installation into useless junk. You need to reformat the hard
> drive
> after installation of SP2 and reinstall XP -- WITHOUT SP2.

Although it's true that very rarely someone will have problems
with SP2 that are not of his own causing, your blanket statement
and your advice are both nonsense.

If the above is your experience, it says much more about your
skills than it does about SP2.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

JeezLouize

December 10th 04, 10:26 PM

Please don't feed the trolls.

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Monique Jean-Pierre > typed:
>
>> "SK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> New here so sorry if asking an already covered topic.... I am told
>>> that after installing SP2 that there is a whole lot of junk left on
>>> the HD
>>
>> Yes, SP2 turns many programs on the hard drive at the time of
>> installation into useless junk. You need to reformat the hard drive
>> after installation of SP2 and reinstall XP -- WITHOUT SP2.
>
>
> Although it's true that very rarely someone will have problems with SP2 that are
> not of his own causing, your blanket statement and your advice are both nonsense.
>
> If the above is your experience, it says much more about your skills than it does
> about SP2.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>

December 11th 04, 10:01 PM

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:42:32 -0800, Rock > wrote:

>See the section in this link on tidying up:
>http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

I wanted to thank all by replying to my own original message but for
some reason, messages that I post do not come back to me when I
download messages from groups for some strange reason.... So replying
to Rock's message but intended for all.......

I see that there is pros & cons to cleaning up after the installation
of SP2. So, I guess to play it safe, I will leave all the stuff
SP2's installation left behind on the HD.

As to those that had problems with SP2... I have heard more SP2
horror stories than I have heard with any software upgrade/update from
any company. MS does seem to have a track record of throwing stuff on
the market that is either not ready or just not workable (ME comes to
mind for one of their latest fiasco's).

Anyway, and before anyone decides to flame me for the above personal
views... I had no problems with SP2 (Knock on wood). I installed it
on my desktop (home brewed Athlon System) and laptop (Gateway 450sx).
Before doing so, I was directed toward a web page presented by Jupiter
Jones which gave a play by play of stuff to do before attempting the
installation. Not getting into all the pre installation stuff
suggested on there, it did entail a bit of pre installation work to
assure the system was as ready as it could be for an attempt at SP2.

After readying both systems per Jupiter Jones' suggestions, I held my
breath, turned the pace maker up on high and went for it ( I did the
downloadable version of the SP2 installation instead of the MS update
site method) To my utter surprise, it took and everything worked. I
even had no problems with a software package that was one of those
listed as SP2 not being compatible with.

However, and to the credit of some of those who had total system melt
down after SP2..... I know some that did the same exact pre
installation checks and fixes and still had a complete system failure
leading to the need for a complete system restoration. So who
knows.... I was either lucky or prepared or both.

But.... But!........ let me close is saying that I was under the
assumption that most of what SP2 was all about was to get XP to a
point where it was more secure for your run of the mill computer owner
that knows nothing more about computers and computer security beyond
what is required to turn the system on and operate the keyboard.
People that have no idea of newsgroups much less staying current on
the technology and current techno events much less where to search for
such information even if they were interested. Heck, most of these
people have their systems set to auto download AND install, without
any notification, any updates provided by MS.

If that was the type person SP2 was made to save from the clutches of
all that is evil and lurking on the net then you would have thought
that SP2 would have been designed to check the system it is being
applied to to make sure it is compatible or not with the existing
system setup before installing itself. I am told it wasn't made for
those that are already clued in and have independent firewall, virus
protection, adaware, spyware, etc. applications installed on their
systems. However, to be applicable for future MS critical and
suggested updates, one has to be running SP2 no matter if they were
already protected in all manners of security.

Anyway... I feel lucky that both my systems made it through the
upgrade without any failures and I feel sorry for those that lost all
they had from the attempt. I do not feel "MOST" did anything wrong
because..... an upgrade should be nothing more than clicking on an EXE
and letting the intelligence supposedly possessed by the software
designers take care of the rest. It should not be our jobs to have to
cover our arses from what whatever the software designers throw out
the door.

The National News had something on this a few weeks back... They said
that any industry that consistently puts out substandard products
usually finds themselves either in class action law suits or just out
of business or both. However (they said) the computing public has
grown complacent and/or tolerant toward the software industry in that
we have grown to expect installation of new software products or
upgrading of existing software products to bring our systems to its
knees and if it goes through without a hitch, we feel lucky.... Sort
of like me feeling lucky that SP2 installed without any problems on my
two systems....

Why should I have to feel lucky? Why shouldn't a successful
conclusion be expected instead of a surprise?

Sorry for running on with this but.....

Regards,
SK

George Hester

December 11th 04, 11:42 PM

Well said and Bravo! I am to the point that if I don't experience the =
slew of Security flaws I leave it the hell
alone. Because then I'm not guessing why something which worked once =
ain't working any more. Does
your Help and Support still work? all of it? Try starting the Restore =
Wizard from Help and Support. If it starts
count yourself lucky.

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"SK" > wrote in message =
...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:42:32 -0800, Rock > wrote:
>=20
<snip>
> Why should I have to feel lucky? Why shouldn't a successful
> conclusion be expected instead of a surprise? =20
>=20
> Sorry for running on with this but..... =20
>=20
> Regards,
> SK

Gary R.

December 12th 04, 01:23 AM

"SK" > wrote in message
...
> As to those that had problems with SP2... I have heard more SP2
> horror stories than I have heard with any software upgrade/update from
> any company. MS does seem to have a track record of throwing stuff on
> the market that is either not ready or just not workable (ME comes to
> mind for one of their latest fiasco's).
>

98SE was a real nightmare; the forums were full of problems, and I learned
the true value of a full Ghost backup from this 98-98SE upgrade. I now have
11 sp2 upgrades done for myself and others, with no problems except one,
which was a simple 'uninstall unneeded software for wireless card' problem.
I think SP2 was a great upgrade.

People were screaming and groaning when SP2 was delayed, right in these
forums, and criticizing MS for that; now you criticize them for the
opposite. How would you resolve that one? Maybe charge $120 for it like
Apple did with OSX versions, would that be satisfactory?

Incidentally, I just reformatted a hard drive from our old family computer
that had ME installed in June2000, and was in daily use by several members
until this spring. Same install, through a motherboard/cpu change and hard
drive upgrades, worked mostly flawlessly all those years. It still was
working OK, I felt guilt formatting it but wanted the drive and didn't need
the OS anymore. ME was an excellent system, just came too soon after 98SE
and was basically unwanted. It combined many features of XP like system
restore, file protection, easy networking, many others, and while it wasn't
perfect, was a good system if you didn't bog it down with spyware and other
junk. My 2 year old grandson was using an ME machine that held up well to
2-year old mistakes for nearly a year, until I upgraded the machine; Sure,
it would lock up if he ran several instances of KidPix at the same time and
started a couple of Nemo's besides, but that was actually caused by a lousy
video card; I had a Ghost backup of the original install, and never even had
to use it.

Gary

December 13th 04, 01:33 AM

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:42:53 -0500, "George Hester"
> wrote:

> Does your Help and Support still work? all of it?

All of it that I have used seems to be fine.

> Try starting the Restore Wizard from Help and Support. If it starts
>count yourself lucky.

Gave that part a test and it worked just fine....

Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.

Regards,
SK

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 13th 04, 05:49 AM

Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
Preparation is the key.
Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with SP-2 or any
other installation.
It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when often they set
themselves up to fail early on.

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

"SK" > wrote in message
...
> Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
>
> Regards,
> SK

George Hester

December 13th 04, 07:48 AM

Probably the majority of failed installs of a Service Pack that is true. =
What I am thinking about are successful
installs that lead to nightmares. Sort of like the Windows NT 6 Service =
Pack. That occurred through no fault of
anyone but Microsoft. But then we also must consider that not everyone =
is dumb and a expert in their systems.=20
Most users of PCs don't give a hoot about dlls and Group Policy and =
Active Desktop. All they want to do is turn
their machines on, move the mouse around a bit and turn it off. Not =
everyone is a IT specialist nor do they want
to be. So yes "luck" is a factor for they have no idea nor do they have =
the time to investigate all the knooks and
crannies of the greatest chance of losing something they were happy with =
prior to the "upgrade." I really think you
should see that commercial by Cello Maus (sp? Apple) to get a good =
indication of the frustration many users have
with the PC.

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message =
...
> Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
> Preparation is the key.
> Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with SP-2 =
or any=20
> other installation.
> It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when often =
they set=20
> themselves up to fail early on.
>=20
> --=20
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>=20
>=20
> "SK" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> > Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
> >
> > Regards,
> > SK=20
>=20
>

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 13th 04, 08:10 AM

To give any credit to luck at all does nothing but a disservice to the
users.
As I said before they will set themselves up for failure if they are willing
to give even the slightest credibility to luck.
There is no place in secure computing for luck
The days are long gone when a computer user needed to know nothing for safe
computing.
If safe, secure and reliable computing is desired, the users must learn how
to do it and forget about luck unless failure is acceptable..

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

"George Hester" > wrote in message
...
Probably the majority of failed installs of a Service Pack that is true.
What I am thinking about are successful
installs that lead to nightmares. Sort of like the Windows NT 6 Service
Pack. That occurred through no fault of
anyone but Microsoft. But then we also must consider that not everyone is
dumb and a expert in their systems.
Most users of PCs don't give a hoot about dlls and Group Policy and Active
Desktop. All they want to do is turn
their machines on, move the mouse around a bit and turn it off. Not
everyone is a IT specialist nor do they want
to be. So yes "luck" is a factor for they have no idea nor do they have the
time to investigate all the knooks and
crannies of the greatest chance of losing something they were happy with
prior to the "upgrade." I really think you
should see that commercial by Cello Maus (sp? Apple) to get a good
indication of the frustration many users have
with the PC.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
> Preparation is the key.
> Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with SP-2 or
> any
> other installation.
> It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when often they
> set
> themselves up to fail early on.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "SK" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
> >
> > Regards,
> > SK
>
>

George Hester

December 13th 04, 11:20 PM

Good point and why don't we change human nature while we're at it? No =
one is expecting to get through a upgrade by sheer luck. But they do =
expect the upgrade to work and as luck would have it if that happens =
they can count themselves lucky. I wouldn't say this Jupiter if that =
wasn't a fact. We install SQL Server Service Packs and there is not a =
man or woman alive who doesn't count themselves lucky if it succeeds. =
Fail a few times then join the crowd. There is really nothing you can =
do to prepare yourself so that a failure isn't likely it's a luck of the =
draw and Microsoft knows this and has been working hard over the years =
to minimize that.

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message =
...
> To give any credit to luck at all does nothing but a disservice to the =

> users.
> As I said before they will set themselves up for failure if they are =
willing=20
> to give even the slightest credibility to luck.
> There is no place in secure computing for luck
> The days are long gone when a computer user needed to know nothing for =
safe=20
> computing.
> If safe, secure and reliable computing is desired, the users must =
learn how=20
> to do it and forget about luck unless failure is acceptable..
>=20
> --=20
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>=20
>=20
> "George Hester" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> Probably the majority of failed installs of a Service Pack that is =
true.=20
> What I am thinking about are successful
> installs that lead to nightmares. Sort of like the Windows NT 6 =
Service=20
> Pack. That occurred through no fault of
> anyone but Microsoft. But then we also must consider that not =
everyone is=20
> dumb and a expert in their systems.
> Most users of PCs don't give a hoot about dlls and Group Policy and =
Active=20
> Desktop. All they want to do is turn
> their machines on, move the mouse around a bit and turn it off. Not=20
> everyone is a IT specialist nor do they want
> to be. So yes "luck" is a factor for they have no idea nor do they =
have the=20
> time to investigate all the knooks and
> crannies of the greatest chance of losing something they were happy =
with=20
> prior to the "upgrade." I really think you
> should see that commercial by Cello Maus (sp? Apple) to get a good=20
> indication of the frustration many users have
> with the PC.
>=20
> --=20
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> > Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
> > Preparation is the key.
> > Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with =
SP-2 or=20
> > any
> > other installation.
> > It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when often =
they=20
> > set
> > themselves up to fail early on.
> >
> > --=20
> > Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >
> >
> > "SK" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > SK
> >
> >=20
>=20
>

December 14th 04, 06:17 AM

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:49:27 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> wrote:

>Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.

No matter how you try to spin it and try to dress it up and make it
appear to be warm and fuzzy, It does when two people use the same set
of Preparation Guidelines and one's system has no problem with SP2
while the other one has a melt down to a point that they are forced to
do a complete restoration to get a working system back. Luck of the
Draw.

Regards,
SK

Rock

December 14th 04, 07:40 AM

SK wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:49:27 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
>
>
> No matter how you try to spin it and try to dress it up and make it
> appear to be warm and fuzzy, It does when two people use the same set
> of Preparation Guidelines and one's system has no problem with SP2
> while the other one has a melt down to a point that they are forced to
> do a complete restoration to get a working system back. Luck of the
> Draw.
>
> Regards,
> SK

No, it means a difference in the systems.

Kelly

December 14th 04, 07:48 AM

Thank you and well stated!

--
All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

"Rock" > wrote in message
...
> SK wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:49:27 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>
>> No matter how you try to spin it and try to dress it up and make it
>> appear to be warm and fuzzy, It does when two people use the same set
>> of Preparation Guidelines and one's system has no problem with SP2
>> while the other one has a melt down to a point that they are forced to
>> do a complete restoration to get a working system back. Luck of the
>> Draw.
>>
>> Regards,
>> SK
>
> No, it means a difference in the systems.
>

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 14th 04, 08:17 AM

"change human nature"?
Why, whether some people believe in something or not does not make it so.

"man or woman alive who doesn't count themselves lucky if it succeeds."
Really?
Then you have contacted everyone who has ever installed SQL Server Service
Packs.
If these people are maintaining these types of systems and depending on
luck, they need to be in another line of work.
I do not want them working for or with me.
"Fail a few times then join the crowd." I have many time, bad luck is never
to blame.
When I fail at something I do not attribute the failure to bad luck, I would
rather find the cause so attempts can be made at prevention.
If I give credit or blame to luck, there is nothing to search for since
that would be the nature of luck.

If you allow people to work for and with you to give credit or blame to
luck, you are also allowing them to fail with a ready made excuse.

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

"George Hester" > wrote in message
...
Good point and why don't we change human nature while we're at it? No one
is expecting to get through a upgrade by sheer luck. But they do expect the
upgrade to work and as luck would have it if that happens they can count
themselves lucky. I wouldn't say this Jupiter if that wasn't a fact. We
install SQL Server Service Packs and there is not a man or woman alive who
doesn't count themselves lucky if it succeeds. Fail a few times then join
the crowd. There is really nothing you can do to prepare yourself so that a
failure isn't likely it's a luck of the draw and Microsoft knows this and
has been working hard over the years to minimize that.

--
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> To give any credit to luck at all does nothing but a disservice to the
> users.
> As I said before they will set themselves up for failure if they are
> willing
> to give even the slightest credibility to luck.
> There is no place in secure computing for luck
> The days are long gone when a computer user needed to know nothing for
> safe
> computing.
> If safe, secure and reliable computing is desired, the users must learn
> how
> to do it and forget about luck unless failure is acceptable..
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "George Hester" > wrote in message
> ...
> Probably the majority of failed installs of a Service Pack that is true.
> What I am thinking about are successful
> installs that lead to nightmares. Sort of like the Windows NT 6 Service
> Pack. That occurred through no fault of
> anyone but Microsoft. But then we also must consider that not everyone is
> dumb and a expert in their systems.
> Most users of PCs don't give a hoot about dlls and Group Policy and Active
> Desktop. All they want to do is turn
> their machines on, move the mouse around a bit and turn it off. Not
> everyone is a IT specialist nor do they want
> to be. So yes "luck" is a factor for they have no idea nor do they have
> the
> time to investigate all the knooks and
> crannies of the greatest chance of losing something they were happy with
> prior to the "upgrade." I really think you
> should see that commercial by Cello Maus (sp? Apple) to get a good
> indication of the frustration many users have
> with the PC.
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
> > Preparation is the key.
> > Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with SP-2 or
> > any
> > other installation.
> > It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when often they
> > set
> > themselves up to fail early on.
> >
> > --
> > Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >
> >
> > "SK" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > SK
> >
> >
>
>

Rock

December 15th 04, 07:48 AM

Kelly wrote:

> Thank you and well stated!
>

thanks...

December 15th 04, 07:49 PM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:40:53 -0800, Rock > wrote:

>No, it means a difference in the systems.

Well, lets look at the article that was published on this (from Local
Newspaper, Knoxville TN back in September)..... My son lives in
Knoxville and cut this out of the newspaper and mailed it to me at the
time it was published there.

Newspaper editor's two kids (twins) first semester in college. Father
buys two identical Gateway Laptops as college gifts for both kids.
Order for both systems in one single order (Gateway 645X's) of which
both are configured/hardwared identically. Same Processor, same
memory, same drives, same MB, same Integrated wireless networking
card, same OS and even the same color case.

Before any additional software or ANYTHING is installed or added to
the two identical systems, the father has IT for newspaper make sure
both identical systems are updated with all MS updates before
presenting them to each kid.

One system upgrades without a single hitch while the other system
crashes to point of needing a complete system restoration. Calls from
IT to MS (doesn't say to who @ MS) turns up no reasoning as to why the
one system of two identical systems would have a complete meltdown
from SP2 while the other doesn't. MS is given remote access to both
systems and agrees that with both systems showing to be identical that
they are stumped as to why this would happen. The article says that
MS suggested to keep restoring and trying the SP2 install until it
takes and then leave the system alone. SP2 finally installs without a
complete meltdown after 3rd complete restoration.

But then at a later date, someone with a lot more knowledge than MS
said that " it means a difference in the systems", not that It [May]
mean or that It [Might] mean but that "It Means". However, MS
themselves told them that according to what they [MS] were seeing,
both systems were identical and they had no answer as to why SP2 had
problems with one of the two identical systems.

SK

December 15th 04, 09:04 PM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:20:47 -0500, "George Hester"
> wrote:

>Good point and why don't we change human nature while we're at it?

Another factor related to human nature is something that we see
throughout areas where the user community comes into contact with
those that are moderators/spokespeople/MVP's whatever you choose to
call them for the products in question.

What usually turns into a request for help concerning a product
problem turns into a ****ing contest because of blind support for the
product and the mindset that the product can do no harm, if it doesn't
work then its the fault of the end user. We see that in some here and
I have seen the same elsewhere. Example of elsewhere:

On a Canon discussion board last year, there was a flew of questions
concerning users having problems after updating a driver for a
specific printer model. The Canon talking Heads on the forum attacked
all posters that claimed problems after the driver upgrade saying that
they didn't follow instructions, their systems weren't properly
prepared (we've heard all that before, right). Well around 12 weeks
after all that started, Canon released a fix to the driver in
question. Seems the people having problems weren't the fault after
all and the Canon MVP's had to suck hind tit.

This isn't saying that the Canon Talking Heads were all arrogant duds
but it does show that they did obtain a Blind Loyalty to Canon and
were in the mindset that the all knowing Canon could never put a
product out that was flawed and any and all problems with the products
must be the fault of the end user and woe be it for anyone on that
discussion board to ever question the validity of any Canon product as
far as its ability to be the cause of any problem and how dare any one
suggest that it is.

After that happened, the Canon Talking Heads were a little more
reserved in their blind support of the product for a few months but
have slowly but assuredly moved back and adapted their usual blind
loyalty of the product as being exempt from being the cause to any and
all possible problems.

So, I guess what I am saying here is.... I ***APPRECIATE*** the help
I get from discussion boards from the product's talking
heads/moderators/MVP's/Product experts, etc.... But their help turns
into a nightmare and loss of any trust and respect for the product
when those that suppose to help then blindly blame all problems with
the product on the end user, refusing till their dying day that the
product they speak for could possibly have any flaws.

You know, if Canon and their forum's talking heads had not have been
so hard headed as to their driver being the problem, then the fix
could have been addressed, coded and released a lot sooner than the 12
weeks that it did take.

Question is, can you change that type of "human Nature" or mindset
that you spoke of?

Regards,
TR

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 15th 04, 10:38 PM

If both systems were truly identical, the results would also have been
identical.
It is impossible to get two truly identical components thus identical
computers is also impossible.

Microsoft has no way, certainly not remotely, of determining if they are
identical.
About the most anyone could determine under those conditions was the same
hardware and software is involved.
But this is a very long way from identical.

The systems you refer were not identical.
Once you find the actual difference the cause may be more obvious.

Your apparent reliance on luck may explain your ignorance of the meaning of
"identical".
Your explanation in another post of yours may also explain yourself more
than the ones you intended.

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

"SK" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:40:53 -0800, Rock > wrote:
>
>>No, it means a difference in the systems.
>
> Well, lets look at the article that was published on this (from Local
> Newspaper, Knoxville TN back in September)..... My son lives in
> Knoxville and cut this out of the newspaper and mailed it to me at the
> time it was published there.
>
> Newspaper editor's two kids (twins) first semester in college. Father
> buys two identical Gateway Laptops as college gifts for both kids.
> Order for both systems in one single order (Gateway 645X's) of which
> both are configured/hardwared identically. Same Processor, same
> memory, same drives, same MB, same Integrated wireless networking
> card, same OS and even the same color case.
>
> Before any additional software or ANYTHING is installed or added to
> the two identical systems, the father has IT for newspaper make sure
> both identical systems are updated with all MS updates before
> presenting them to each kid.
>
> One system upgrades without a single hitch while the other system
> crashes to point of needing a complete system restoration. Calls from
> IT to MS (doesn't say to who @ MS) turns up no reasoning as to why the
> one system of two identical systems would have a complete meltdown
> from SP2 while the other doesn't. MS is given remote access to both
> systems and agrees that with both systems showing to be identical that
> they are stumped as to why this would happen. The article says that
> MS suggested to keep restoring and trying the SP2 install until it
> takes and then leave the system alone. SP2 finally installs without a
> complete meltdown after 3rd complete restoration.
>
> But then at a later date, someone with a lot more knowledge than MS
> said that " it means a difference in the systems", not that It [May]
> mean or that It [Might] mean but that "It Means". However, MS
> themselves told them that according to what they [MS] were seeing,
> both systems were identical and they had no answer as to why SP2 had
> problems with one of the two identical systems.
>
> SK

December 16th 04, 01:46 AM

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:38:33 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> wrote:

>Your apparent reliance on luck may explain your ignorance of the meaning of
>"identical".

They call it selective reading... You know...where someone replies to
a message, even quoting the message, and then totally misstates what
was said in the message. You see it all the time. Lets see, the
message you quoted but did not read says that the newspaper article
stated that the two systems were identical and also said that remote
access with MS determined the two were identical. The message you
quoted but did not read does not say anywhere that I determined the
two systems were identical.

Please, don't turn from spinning to misquoting in order to give
support to your blind allegiance to a product that most people with
the smallest degree of common sense see as having problems that are
NOT all the cause of the end user and their specific systems. You may
not know this but the public is not as stupid as your arrogant
dialogue suggests that they are. I've seen you do that to others and
it will not work with me... I will bring your attention to it each
time you try it on me.

Smufoo the wise inbred camel said: "if misquoting's your forte, then
at least have the intelligence to have the original deleted and for
Bonvoo's sake, don't be stupid enough to actually put clips of the
message you are misquoting in your own reply".

If you really want to help people with the products you speak for,
then have the wisdom and common courtesy to admit that not every
problem is end user generated or the fault of their systems... that
the product you serve might just have problems of its own that needs
addressing..... Then you wont have to spin and misquote your way out
all the time. If you and the people behind the product you support
can't do that then all the end user is left with in dealing with the
product is.... LUCK!

SK

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 16th 04, 02:16 AM

The spin is all yours. quoting an article in a paper in such a way that
makes it difficult to know where the authors comments end and your begin.
The spin continues when you apparently have little faith in your own source.

Do you believe the source you quoted?
If so, much of what you say is pointless.
You may not have determined the systems were identical but your quoting the
article suggests you believe they were identical since you give some
credibility to the author.
If not, why do you waste your time posting something you do not believe?

In the majority of the cases, the problem is with the computer system.
Whether it is misconfigured, damaged hardware or software or incompatible
components.
All of those are system problems.
If they were not problems with the systems, the solutions would not be found
in the system as they most often are.
Some of the causes are Microsoft's as well as other sources but luck is not
a factor.

You can take your "LUCK" someplace else because as I suggested before,
"LUCK" has no place in computing or anything else for that matter requiring
any degree of reliability.

Your insults are noted and further show you need them because you lack
confidence in your own points.
Good bye SK post back in this thread only if your ego needs to see your own
writing.

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

"SK" > wrote in message
...
> They call it selective reading... You know...where someone replies to
> a message, even quoting the message, and then totally misstates what
> was said in the message. You see it all the time. Lets see, the
> message you quoted but did not read says that the newspaper article
> stated that the two systems were identical and also said that remote
> access with MS determined the two were identical. The message you
> quoted but did not read does not say anywhere that I determined the
> two systems were identical.
>
> Please, don't turn from spinning to misquoting in order to give
> support to your blind allegiance to a product that most people with
> the smallest degree of common sense see as having problems that are
> NOT all the cause of the end user and their specific systems. You may
> not know this but the public is not as stupid as your arrogant
> dialogue suggests that they are. I've seen you do that to others and
> it will not work with me... I will bring your attention to it each
> time you try it on me.
>
> Smufoo the wise inbred camel said: "if misquoting's your forte, then
> at least have the intelligence to have the original deleted and for
> Bonvoo's sake, don't be stupid enough to actually put clips of the
> message you are misquoting in your own reply".
>
> If you really want to help people with the products you speak for,
> then have the wisdom and common courtesy to admit that not every
> problem is end user generated or the fault of their systems... that
> the product you serve might just have problems of its own that needs
> addressing..... Then you wont have to spin and misquote your way out
> all the time. If you and the people behind the product you support
> can't do that then all the end user is left with in dealing with the
> product is.... LUCK!
>
> SK

Rock

December 16th 04, 07:56 AM

SK wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:40:53 -0800, Rock > wrote:
>
>
>>No, it means a difference in the systems.
>
>
> Well, lets look at the article that was published on this (from Local
> Newspaper, Knoxville TN back in September)..... My son lives in
> Knoxville and cut this out of the newspaper and mailed it to me at the
> time it was published there.
>
> Newspaper editor's two kids (twins) first semester in college. Father
> buys two identical Gateway Laptops as college gifts for both kids.
> Order for both systems in one single order (Gateway 645X's) of which
> both are configured/hardwared identically. Same Processor, same
> memory, same drives, same MB, same Integrated wireless networking
> card, same OS and even the same color case.
>
> Before any additional software or ANYTHING is installed or added to
> the two identical systems, the father has IT for newspaper make sure
> both identical systems are updated with all MS updates before
> presenting them to each kid.
>
> One system upgrades without a single hitch while the other system
> crashes to point of needing a complete system restoration. Calls from
> IT to MS (doesn't say to who @ MS) turns up no reasoning as to why the
> one system of two identical systems would have a complete meltdown
> from SP2 while the other doesn't. MS is given remote access to both
> systems and agrees that with both systems showing to be identical that
> they are stumped as to why this would happen. The article says that
> MS suggested to keep restoring and trying the SP2 install until it
> takes and then leave the system alone. SP2 finally installs without a
> complete meltdown after 3rd complete restoration.
>
> But then at a later date, someone with a lot more knowledge than MS
> said that " it means a difference in the systems", not that It [May]
> mean or that It [Might] mean but that "It Means". However, MS
> themselves told them that according to what they [MS] were seeing,
> both systems were identical and they had no answer as to why SP2 had
> problems with one of the two identical systems.
>
> SK

There is nothing here that guarantees the systems are identical. Two
pieces of hardware from the same manufacturing run can have differences
from any number of causes.

Plato

December 16th 04, 08:42 AM

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
> If both systems were truly identical, the results would also have been
> identical.
> It is impossible to get two truly identical components thus identical
> computers is also impossible.

Agreed. PCs are like fingerprints. No 2 are the same. Resistors,
capacitors, all have tolerance levels. Heck, you learn about that in
basic electronics ie the color coded resistor for example. The
gold/silver stripe. +- 5% or 10% or whatever. Think of just how many of
these buggers are in a single pc.

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

December 16th 04, 08:52 AM

Troubleshooting would be so much easier if components could be
identical...but to dream like that is futile.

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

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
...
> Agreed. PCs are like fingerprints. No 2 are the same. Resistors,
> capacitors, all have tolerance levels. Heck, you learn about that in
> basic electronics ie the color coded resistor for example. The
> gold/silver stripe. +- 5% or 10% or whatever. Think of just how many of
> these buggers are in a single pc.

Plato

December 16th 04, 10:08 AM

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>
> Troubleshooting would be so much easier if components could be
> identical...but to dream like that is futile.

Such dreams would be nightmares. My dreams tend to be finding goddesses
swimming in streams on walks through the woods.

Bob I

December 16th 04, 03:45 PM

Unfortunately 2 things are wrong
1. NEITHER party was capable of proving the 2 PC'S were IDENTICAL.
AND
2. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create two IDENTICAL PC's. Simular
components YES. IDENTICAL NO.

SK wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:38:33 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Your apparent reliance on luck may explain your ignorance of the meaning of
>>"identical".
>>
>
> They call it selective reading... You know...where someone replies to
> a message, even quoting the message, and then totally misstates what
> was said in the message. You see it all the time. Lets see, the
> message you quoted but did not read says that the newspaper article
> stated that the two systems were identical and also said that remote
> access with MS determined the two were identical. The message you
> quoted but did not read does not say anywhere that I determined the
> two systems were identical.
>
> Please, don't turn from spinning to misquoting in order to give
> support to your blind allegiance to a product that most people with
> the smallest degree of common sense see as having problems that are
> NOT all the cause of the end user and their specific systems. You may
> not know this but the public is not as stupid as your arrogant
> dialogue suggests that they are. I've seen you do that to others and
> it will not work with me... I will bring your attention to it each
> time you try it on me.
>
> Smufoo the wise inbred camel said: "if misquoting's your forte, then
> at least have the intelligence to have the original deleted and for
> Bonvoo's sake, don't be stupid enough to actually put clips of the
> message you are misquoting in your own reply".
>
> If you really want to help people with the products you speak for,
> then have the wisdom and common courtesy to admit that not every
> problem is end user generated or the fault of their systems... that
> the product you serve might just have problems of its own that needs
> addressing..... Then you wont have to spin and misquote your way out
> all the time. If you and the people behind the product you support
> can't do that then all the end user is left with in dealing with the
> product is.... LUCK!
>
> SK
>
>
>

cquirke (MVP Win9x)

December 16th 04, 07:39 PM

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:46:14 GMT, SK >
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:38:33 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

Ah, I snipped the lot, it's getting to be more heat than light.

On "luck or knowledge", there's more to this than meets the eye.

The assertion is that computing is still fully deterministic, and thus
with sufficient knowldedge, one can either work forwards from an
initial state and predict outcomes, or work backwards from a problem
state and derive the history and cause.

One of the reasons I'm interested in computing is that it's becoming
complex enough to be "interesting", i.e. non-deterministic. The more
variables there are (say, from freshly-installed OS to mature
installation with various apps, or from 1 PC to an Internet full of
computers) the less deterministic things become.

Now there's a school of thought that says this is a computational
power thing; that with sufficient power, you can blow away the voodoo
and mumbo-jumbo and get back to cause and effect.

Then there's the chaos perspective that notes how small variations can
spin out to big effects after a few iterations or whatever. Anyone
who played Breakout will understand this intuitively; shoot 3 balls in
nearly the same direction, and after a few bounces, they are behaving
utterly differently. The seed of that variation is entropy, I guess.

So while initially, we may have predicted an eventual management of
complexities e.g. turbulence, we now wonder if this will ever be so.

What preturbs PCs, even when the user is completely knowledgeable
about the installation history? AutoChk "fixes", av cleanups and
vendor-pushed updates can all sneak changes past even the most
vigilant user. But there are also imponderables such as race
conditions or the fine details of user method.

For an example of the latter; it may be relevant, when installing
device drivers, whether you did so before or after plugging in the
device; whether the CD autoran before PnP prompted for a driver
search, or whether you powered on the device before the PC.

This is the detail that makes definitive tshooting (i.e. not as in
"fix the problem on this PC" but "document this problem for all PCs"
or "describe the problem for detailed tech support") so taxing.

Gary Player said: "The more I practice, the luckier I get" :-)

>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

George Hester

December 18th 04, 04:29 AM

Very good cquirkw. You have basically made it clear that to believe in =
the deterministic behavior of the PC
is a fallacy. Those that have been working with this technology over =
the years recognize that and do not expect
with certainty anything to happen that ought to. We all know the =
randomness of some outcomes and the
variance is what we hope to tighten. That variance is what we call =
luck. Sometimes the variance is just too wide and we end up with failed =
systems for what on the surface look like identical setups. It is true =
that "God plays Dice." - Albert Einstein

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message =
...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:46:14 GMT, SK >=20
> >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:38:33 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>=20
> Ah, I snipped the lot, it's getting to be more heat than light.
>=20
> On "luck or knowledge", there's more to this than meets the eye.
>=20
> The assertion is that computing is still fully deterministic, and thus
> with sufficient knowldedge, one can either work forwards from an
> initial state and predict outcomes, or work backwards from a problem
> state and derive the history and cause.
>=20
> One of the reasons I'm interested in computing is that it's becoming
> complex enough to be "interesting", i.e. non-deterministic. The more
> variables there are (say, from freshly-installed OS to mature
> installation with various apps, or from 1 PC to an Internet full of
> computers) the less deterministic things become.
>=20
> Now there's a school of thought that says this is a computational
> power thing; that with sufficient power, you can blow away the voodoo
> and mumbo-jumbo and get back to cause and effect.
>=20
> Then there's the chaos perspective that notes how small variations can
> spin out to big effects after a few iterations or whatever. Anyone
> who played Breakout will understand this intuitively; shoot 3 balls in
> nearly the same direction, and after a few bounces, they are behaving
> utterly differently. The seed of that variation is entropy, I guess.
>=20
> So while initially, we may have predicted an eventual management of
> complexities e.g. turbulence, we now wonder if this will ever be so.
>=20
> What preturbs PCs, even when the user is completely knowledgeable
> about the installation history? AutoChk "fixes", av cleanups and
> vendor-pushed updates can all sneak changes past even the most
> vigilant user. But there are also imponderables such as race
> conditions or the fine details of user method.
>=20
> For an example of the latter; it may be relevant, when installing
> device drivers, whether you did so before or after plugging in the
> device; whether the CD autoran before PnP prompted for a driver
> search, or whether you powered on the device before the PC.
>=20
> This is the detail that makes definitive tshooting (i.e. not as in
> "fix the problem on this PC" but "document this problem for all PCs"
> or "describe the problem for detailed tech support") so taxing.
>=20
> Gary Player said: "The more I practice, the luckier I get" :-)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

George Hester

December 23rd 04, 02:25 AM

Not really just recognizing reality for what it's worth. Luck was =
involved in getting Man to the moon. Much work on our part sure but =
don't count luck out of the equation. It's not as "irrational" as you =
may think.

--=20
George Hester
_________________________________
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message =
...
> "change human nature"?
> Why, whether some people believe in something or not does not make it =
so.
>=20
> "man or woman alive who doesn't count themselves lucky if it =
succeeds."
> Really?
> Then you have contacted everyone who has ever installed SQL Server =
Service=20
> Packs.
> If these people are maintaining these types of systems and depending =
on=20
> luck, they need to be in another line of work.
> I do not want them working for or with me.
> "Fail a few times then join the crowd." I have many time, bad luck is =
never=20
> to blame.
> When I fail at something I do not attribute the failure to bad luck, I =
would=20
> rather find the cause so attempts can be made at prevention.
> If I give credit or blame to luck, there is nothing to search for =
since=20
> that would be the nature of luck.
>=20
> If you allow people to work for and with you to give credit or blame =
to=20
> luck, you are also allowing them to fail with a ready made excuse.
>=20
> --=20
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>=20
>=20
> "George Hester" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> Good point and why don't we change human nature while we're at it? No =
one=20
> is expecting to get through a upgrade by sheer luck. But they do =
expect the=20
> upgrade to work and as luck would have it if that happens they can =
count=20
> themselves lucky. I wouldn't say this Jupiter if that wasn't a fact. =
We=20
> install SQL Server Service Packs and there is not a man or woman alive =
who=20
> doesn't count themselves lucky if it succeeds. Fail a few times then =
join=20
> the crowd. There is really nothing you can do to prepare yourself so =
that a=20
> failure isn't likely it's a luck of the draw and Microsoft knows this =
and=20
> has been working hard over the years to minimize that.
>=20
> --=20
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message=20
> ...
> > To give any credit to luck at all does nothing but a disservice to =
the
> > users.
> > As I said before they will set themselves up for failure if they are =

> > willing
> > to give even the slightest credibility to luck.
> > There is no place in secure computing for luck
> > The days are long gone when a computer user needed to know nothing =
for=20
> > safe
> > computing.
> > If safe, secure and reliable computing is desired, the users must =
learn=20
> > how
> > to do it and forget about luck unless failure is acceptable..
> >
> > --=20
> > Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >
> >
> > "George Hester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > Probably the majority of failed installs of a Service Pack that is =
true.
> > What I am thinking about are successful
> > installs that lead to nightmares. Sort of like the Windows NT 6 =
Service
> > Pack. That occurred through no fault of
> > anyone but Microsoft. But then we also must consider that not =
everyone is
> > dumb and a expert in their systems.
> > Most users of PCs don't give a hoot about dlls and Group Policy and =
Active
> > Desktop. All they want to do is turn
> > their machines on, move the mouse around a bit and turn it off. Not
> > everyone is a IT specialist nor do they want
> > to be. So yes "luck" is a factor for they have no idea nor do they =
have=20
> > the
> > time to investigate all the knooks and
> > crannies of the greatest chance of losing something they were happy =
with
> > prior to the "upgrade." I really think you
> > should see that commercial by Cello Maus (sp? Apple) to get a good
> > indication of the frustration many users have
> > with the PC.
> >
> > --=20
> > George Hester
> > _________________________________
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Since there is no such thing, luck has nothing to do with it.
> > > Preparation is the key.
> > > Those who prepare, eliminate most possibilities of problems with =
SP-2 or
> > > any
> > > other installation.
> > > It is easy for those who fail to claim they had bad luck when =
often they
> > > set
> > > themselves up to fail early on.
> > >
> > > --=20
> > > Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> > > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> > >
> > >
> > > "SK" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Again, and as you suggested.... I guess I'm lucky.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > SK
> > >
> > >
> >
> >=20
>=20
>