XP SP2

[Sitara Lal]

Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.

[Justin Haygood]

Its not just extra protection, it also contains updates to current
software. A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
updated to work with SP2, and most companies have patched their software
for SP2.

Updates in Service Pack 2:

-- New Security Enhancements: IE 6 SP2, D.E.P., Windows Firewall,
Security Center, new Automatic Updates, Windows Messenger 4.7

-- Networking Enhancements: Microsoft Peer to Peer Functionality, IPv6
support, Better support for Wireless Networking, Better DNS cacheing

-- Updated Multimedia Experience: Windows Media Player 9 Series, DirectX
9.0C, Windows Movie Maker 2.1

-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM, Hardware
Specific Fixes for certain hardware devices, USB devices no longer
randomly disappear

As you can see, its not just a big security hole, its a worthwhile
update to many people, not just for security reasons.

Sitara Lal wrote:
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
it also updates over 5 million lines of code to enhance the performance
of Windows XP. SP2 is a MAJOR CRITICAL UPDATE a prudent
should install ASAP.

Learn About Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx

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

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

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

"Sitara Lal" wrote:

| Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
| Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
| down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
| ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

SP2 should be part of a proper security programme which will not just
protect you but protect others too..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Sitara Lal" > wrote in message
...
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.
>
>

[Shenan Stanley]

Sitara Lal wrote:
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as
> possible? Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to
> almost shove it down our throats - after all we are all grown up and
> can decide for ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or
> not.

No one is forcing you to do anything.

Service Pack 2 has been out since August 2004.
If you have not installed it by now, why would you HAVE to install it now?
Yes - Windows XP Professional/Home SP1 will no longer be supported by
Microsoft come September 2006.
If you know how to manage your patching and such, there is no "forced"
anything.
If you don't know how to manage your patching and such - then there is your
problem..

Perhaps this list of tips will teach you how to manage your system properly
and help you learn about maintaining it.

Microsoft has these suggestions for Protecting your computer from the
various "bad things" that could happen to you/it:

Protect your PC
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/


Although those tips are fantastic, there are many things you should
know above and beyond what is there as well as other methods and
applications you can use to protect yourself. Below I have detailed
out many steps that can not only help you cleanup a problem PC but
keep it clean and secure as well as running at its top performance mark.

I know this list can seem intimidating - it is quite long and a lot
to take in for a novice - but I assure you that one trip through this
list and you will understand your computer and the options available
to you for protecting your data much better and that the next time
you review these steps, the time it takes will be greatly reduced.

Let's take the cleanup of your computer step-by-step. Yes, it will take
up some of your time - but consider what you use your computer
for and how much you would dislike it if all of your stuff on your
computer went away because you did not "feel like" performing some
simple maintenance tasks - think of it like changing the oil in your car,
changing the air filter on your home A/C unit, paying your bills on time,
etc.

Let's go through some maintenance first that should only have to be done
once (mostly):

Tip (1):
Locate all of the software (the installation media - CDs, etc) that you
have installed on your computer. Collect these CDs into a single pile
and locate the original installation media (CDs, disks) in a central and
safe place along with their CD keys and such. Make backups of these
installation media sets using your favorite copying method (CD Burner and
application, Disk copier, etc.) You'll be glad to know that if you have
a CD burner, you may be able to use a free application to make a
duplicate copy of your CDs. One such application is ISORecorder:

ISORecorder home page (with general instructions on use):
http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm

Pre-SP2 version:
http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/IsoRecorder/download.asp

Post-SP2 beta version:
http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/download/ISORecorderV2B2.zip

More full function applications (free) for CD/DVD burning would be:

DeepBurner Free
http://www.deepburner.com/

CDBurnerXP Pro
http://www.cdburnerxp.se/

Another Option would be to search the web with Pricewatch.com or
Dealsites.net and find deals on Nero and/or Roxio.


Tip (2):
Empty your Internet Explorer Temporary Internet Files and make sure the
maximum size for this is small enough not to cause trouble in the future.
Empty your Temporary Internet Files and shrink the size it stores to a
size between 128MB and 512MB..

- Open ONE copy of Internet Explorer.
- Select TOOLS -> Internet Options.
- Under the General tab in the "Temporary Internet Files" section, do the
following:
- Click on "Delete Cookies" (click OK)
- Click on "Settings" and change the "Amount of disk space to use:" to
something between 128MB and 512MB. (Betting it is MUCH larger right
now.)
- Click OK.
- Click on "Delete Files" and select to "Delete all offline contents"
(the checkbox) and click OK. (If you had a LOT, this could take 2-10
minutes or more.)
- Once it is done, click OK, close Internet Explorer, re-open Internet
Explorer.


Tip (3):
If things are running a bit slow or you have an older system
(1.5GHz or less and 256MB RAM or less) then you may want to look into
tweaking the performance a bit by turning off some of the memory
using Windows XP "prettifications". The fastest method is:

Control Panel --> System --> Advanced tab --> Performance section,
Settings button. Then choose "adjust for best performance" and you
now have a Windows 2000/98 look which turned off many of the annoying
"prettifications" in one swift action. You can play with the last
three checkboxes to get more of an XP look without many of the
other annoyances. You could also grab and install/mess with one
(or more) of the Microsoft Powertoys - TweakUI in particular:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx


Tip (4):
Understanding what a good password might be is vital to your
personal and system security. You may not need to password your home
computer, as you may have it in a locked area (your home) where no
one else has access to it. Remember, however, that locked area is
unlocked when you access the Internet unless you are taking proper
precautions. Also, you aren't always "in that locked area" when using
your computer online - meaning you likely have usernames and passwords
associated with web sites and the likes that you would prefer other
people do not discover/use. This is why you should understand and
utilize good passwords.

Good passwords are those that meet these general rules
(mileage may vary):

Passwords should contain at least six characters, and the character
string should contain at least three of these four character types:
- uppercase letters
- lowercase letters
- numerals
- nonalphanumeric characters (e.g., *, %, &, !)

Passwords should not contain your name/logon name. Passwords should
be unique to you and easy to remember. One method many people are
using today is to make up a phrase that describes a point in their
life and then turning that phrase into their password by using only
certain letters out of each word in that phrase. It's much better
than using your birthday month/year or your anniversary in a pure
sense. For example, let's say my phrase is:
"Moved to new home in 2004"
I could come up with this password from that:
"Mv2n3whmN04"

The password tip is in the "one time" section, but I highly
recommend you periodically change your passwords. The suggested time
varies, but I will throw out a "once in every 3 to 6 months for
every account you have."


Tip (5):
This tip is also "questionable" in the "one time" section. However,
if properly setup, this one can be pretty well ignored for most people
after the initial "fiddle-with" time.

Why you should use a computer firewall..
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/viruses/fwbenefits.mspx

You should, in some way, use a firewall. Hardware (like a nice
Cable Modem/DSL router) or software is up to you. Many use both of
these. The simplest one to use is the hardware one, as most people
don't do anything they need to configure their NAT device for and
those who do certainly will not mind fiddling with the equipment to
make things work for them. Next in the line of "simplicity" would
have to be the built-in Windows Firewall of Windows XP. In SP2 it
is turned on by default. It is not difficult to turn on in any
case, however:

Enable/Disable the Internet Connection Firewall (Pre-SP2):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283673

More information on the Internet Connection Firewall (Pre-SP2):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320855

Post-SP2 Windows Firewall Information/guidance:
http://snipurl.com/atal

The trouble with the Windows Firewall is that it only keeps things
out. Truthfully, for most people who maintain their system in other
ways, this is MORE than sufficient. However, you may feel otherwise.
If you want to know when one of your applications is trying to obtain
access to the outside world so you can stop it, then you will have to
install a third-party application and configure/maintain it. I have
compiles a list with links of some of the better known/free firewalls
you can choose from:

ZoneAlarm (Free and up)
http://snipurl.com/6ohg

Kerio Personal Firewall (KPF) (Free and up)
http://www.kerio.com/kpf_download.html

Outpost Firewall from Agnitum (Free and up)
http://www.agnitum.com/download/

Sygate Personal Firewall (Free and up)
http://smb.sygate.com/buy/download_buy.htm

Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall (~$25 and up)
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/nis/npf/

BlackICE PC Protection ($39.95 and up)
http://blackice.iss.net/

Perhaps you can find the right firewall for your situation in that
list and set it up/configure it. Every firewall MAY require some
maintenance. Essentially checking for patches or upgrades (this
goes for hardware and software solutions) is the extent of this
maintenance - but you may also have to configure your firewall to
allow some traffic depending on your needs. Also, don't stack these
things. Running more than one firewall will not make you safer
- it would likely (in fact) negate some protection you gleamed
from one or the other firewalls you run.



Now that you have some of the more basic (one-time) things down..
Let's go through some of the steps you should take periodically to
maintain a healthy and stable windows computer. If you have not
done some of these things in the past, they may seem tedious at
first - however, they will become routine and some can even be
automatically scheduled.


Tip (6):
The system restore feature is a new one - first appearing in Windows
ME and then sticking around for Windows XP. It is a VERY useful
feature - if you keep it maintained and use it to your advantage.
However, remember that the system restore pretty much tells you in
the name what it protects - "system" files. Your documents, your
pictures, your stuff is NOT system files - so you should also look
into some backup solution.

I'll mainly work around Windows XP, as that is what the bulk of this
document is about. I will, however, point out a single place for you
poor souls still stuck in Windows ME where you can get information on
maintaining your system right now:

Windows ME Computer Health:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsME/using/computerhealth/articles/

Pay close attention to the sections:
(in order)
- Clean up your hard disk
- Check for errors by running ScanDisk
- Defragment your hard disk
- Roll back the clock with System Restore

Now back to the point at hand - maintaining your system restore in
Windows XP SHOULD be automatic - but I have seen the automatic go wrong
too many times not to suggest the following.. Whenever you think about
it (after doing a once-over on your machine once a month or so would
be optimal) - clear out your System Restore and create a manual
restoration point. Why? Too many times have I seen the system restore
files go corrupt or get a virus in them, meaning you could not or
did not want to restore from them. By clearing it out periodically
you help prevent any corruption from happening and you make sure you
have at least one good "snapshot".
(This, of course, will erase any previous restore point you have.)

- Turn off System Restore.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310405
- Reboot.
- Turn on System Restore.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310405
- Make a Manual Restoration Point.
http://snipurl.com/68nx

That covers your system files, but doesn't do anything for the files
that you are REALLY worried about - yours! For that you need to look
into backups. You can either manually copy your important files, folders,
documents, spreadsheets, emails, contacts, pictures, drawings and so on
to an external location (CD/DV - any disk of some sort, etc) or you can
use the backup tool that comes with Windows XP:

How To Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308422

Yes - you still need some sort of external media to store the results
on, but you could schedule the backup to occur when you are not around,
then burn the resultant data onto CD or DVD or something when you are
(while you do other things!)


Tip (7):
You should sometimes look through the list of applications that are
installed on your computer. The list MIGHT surprise you. There are more
than likely things in there you KNOW you never use - so why have them
there? There may even be things you KNOW you did not install and
certainly do not use (maybe don't WANT to use.)

This web site should help you get started at looking through this list:

How to Uninstall Programs
http://snipurl.com/8v6b

A word of warning - Do NOT uninstall anything you think you MIGHT need
in the future unless you have completed Tip (1) and have the installation
media and proper keys for use backed up somewhere safe!


Tip (8):
Patches and Updates!

This one cannot be stressed enough. It is SO simple, yet so neglected
by many people. It is especially simple for the critical Windows patches!
Microsoft put in an AUTOMATED feature for you to utilize so that you do
NOT have to worry yourself about the patching of the Operating System:

How to configure and use Automatic Updates in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306525

However, not everyone wants to be a slave to "automation", and that is
fine - as long as you are willing to do things manually. Admittedly, I
prefer this method on some of my more critical systems.

Windows Update
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

Go there and scan your machine for updates. Always get the critical ones
as you see them. Write down the KB###### or Q###### you see when
selecting the updates and if you have trouble over the next few days,
go into your control panel (Add/Remove Programs), match up the latest
numbers you downloaded recently (since you started noticing an issue) and
uninstall them. If there was more than one (usually is), uninstall them
one by one - with a few hours of use in between, to see if the problem
returns. Yes - the process is not perfect (updating) and can cause trouble
like I mentioned - but as you can see, the solution isn't that bad - and is
MUCH better than the alternatives.

Windows is not the only product you likely have on your PC. The
manufacturers of the other products usually have updates as well. New
versions of almost everything come out all the time - some are free, some
are pay - some you can only download if you are registered - but it is best
to check. Just go to their web pages and look under their support and
download sections. For example, for Microsoft Office update, you should
visit:

Microsoft Office Updates
http://office.microsoft.com/
(and select "downloads")

You also have hardware on your machine that requires drivers to interface
with the operating system. You have a video card that allows you to see on
your screen, a sound card that allows you to hear your PCs sound output and
so on. Visit those manufacturer web sites for the latest downloadable
drivers for your hardware/operating system. Always (IMO) get the
manufacturers’ hardware driver over any Microsoft offers. On the Windows
Update site I mentioned earlier, I suggest NOT getting their hardware
drivers - no matter how tempting. First - how do you know what hardware
you have in your computer? Invoice or if it is up and working now - take
inventory:

Belarc Advisor
http://belarc.com/free_download.html

EVEREST Home Edition
http://www.lavalys.com/products/download.php?pid=1&lang=en

Once you know what you have, what next? Go get the latest driver for your
hardware/OS from the manufacturer's web page. For example, let's say you
have an NVidia chipset video card or ATI video card, perhaps a Creative
Labs sound card or C-Media chipset sound card...

NVidia Video Card Drivers
http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp

ATI Video Card Drivers
http://www.atitech.com/support/driver.html

Creative Labs Sound Device
http://us.creative.com/support/downloads/

C-Media Sound Device
http://www.cmedia.com.tw/e_download_01.htm

Then install these drivers. Updated drivers are usually more stable and
may provide extra benefits/features that you really wished you had before.

As for Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP, Microsoft has made this
particular patch available in a number of ways. First, there is the
Windows Update web page above. Then there is a direct download site
and finally, you can order the FREE CD from Microsoft.

Direct Download of Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP
http://snipurl.com/8bqy

Order the Free Windows XP SP2 CD
http://snipurl.com/8umo


Tip (9):
What about the dreaded word in the computer world, VIRUS?

Well, there are many products to choose from that will help you prevent
infections from these horrid little applications. Many are FREE to the
home user. Which one you choose is a matter of taste, really. I wouldn't
list one here I had not personally used - and they all work. Many people
have emotional attachments or performance issues with one or another
AntiVirus software. Try some out, read reviews and decide for yourself
which you like more:

avast! (Free and up)
http://www.avast.com/

AVG Anti-Virus System (Free and up)
http://www.grisoft.com/

AntiVir (Free and up)
http://www.free-av.com/

RAV AntiVirus Online Virus Scan (Free!)
http://www.ravantivirus.com/scan/

Symantec (Norton) AntiVirus (~$11 and up)
http://www.symantec.com/nav/nav_9xnt/

Kaspersky Anti-Virus (~$49.95 and up)
http://www.kaspersky.com/products.html

Panda Antivirus Titanium (~$39.95 and up)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/
(Free Online Scanner: http://www.pandasoftware.com/activescan/)

McAfee VirusScan (~$11 and up)
http://www.mcafee.com/

Trend Micro (~$49.95 and up)
http://www.trendmicro.com/en/home/us/personal.htm
(Free Online Scanner:
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp)

Untested (by me):
eTrust EZ Antivirus ($29.95 and up)
https://www2.my-etrust.com/commerce/buy.it.cfm

Most of them have automatic update capabilities. You will have to
look into the features of the one you choose. Whatever one you finally
settle with - be SURE to keep it updated (I recommend at least daily) and
perform a full scan periodically (yes, it protects you actively, but a
full scan once a month at 4AM probably won't bother you.)


Tip (10):
The most rampant infestation at the current time concerns SPYWARE/ADWARE.
I hate this stuff. It has no purpose. I have seen people try to justify
it over and over - it's worthless. It slows down your PC, it can send
your private information to people you'll never meet and did I mention,
it's worthless. You need to eliminate it from your machine.

If you use P2P software, this COULD make that stop working. Find some
decent software to do the same thing - what you are currently using is
crap.

Anyway - there is no one software that cleans and immunizes you against
everything. Antivirus software - you only needed one. Firewall, you
only needed one. AntiSpyware - you may need several. I have a list and
I recommend you use at least the first 5. I know that sounds like a lot,
and you may be saying "But you said earlier that I should clean my system,
now you are telling me to install more software - 5 pieces in fact!" Okay,
I get your point, but please consider that this stuff has prevented the
install of the latest service pack for some people, it has the potential
to slow and crater your PC, it can send your private information around
the world to people you do not know - it is all around BAD.

First - make sure you have NOT installed "Rogue AntiSpyware". There are
people out there who created AntiSpyware products that actually install
spyware of their own! You need to avoid these:

Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

Also, you can always visit this site..
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/unwanted.htm
For more updated information.

Then, my suggestion again is that you at least install the first five of
these: (Install, Run, Update, Scan with..)

Lavasoft AdAware (Free and up)
http://www.lavasoft.de/support/download/
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/atdn )

Spybot Search and Destroy (Free!)
http://www.safer-networking.net/en/download/index.html
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/atdk )

Bazooka Adware and Spyware Scanner (Free!)
http://www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate3 )

SpywareBlaster (Free!)
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/sbdownload.html
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate6 )

IE-SPYAD (Free!)
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate7 )

CWShredder (Free!)
http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_8114.shtml

Hijack This! (Free)
http://mjc1.com/mirror/hjt/
( Tutorial: http://hjt.wizardsofwebsites.com/ )

ToolbarCop (Free!)
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/toolbarcop.htm

Browser Security Tests
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/

Popup Tester
http://www.popuptest.com/

The Cleaner (49.95 and up)
http://www.moosoft.com/

If used properly, you should have a malware free system now. The last
two of the first five I suggest you install are immunization applications.
None of these programs (in these editions) run in the background unless you
TELL them to. The space they take up and how easy they are to use greatly
makes up for any inconvenience you may be feeling.

Unfortunately, although that will lessen your popups on the Internet/while
you are online, it won't eliminate them. I have looked at a lot of options,
seen a lot of them used in production with people who seem to attract popups
like a plague, and I only have a few other suggestions that should help.
This
one ends up serving double duty (search engine and popup stopper in one):

The Google Toolbar (Free!)
http://toolbar.google.com/

Yeah - it adds a bar to your Internet Explorer - but it’s a useful one. You
can search from there anytime with one of the best search engines on the
planet (IMO.) And the fact it stops most popups - wow - BONUS! If you
don't like that suggestion, then I am just going to say you go to
www.google.com and search for other options.

Please notice that Windows XP SP2 does help stop popups as well.

Another option is to use an alternative Web browser. I suggest
"Mozilla Firefox", as it has some great features and is very easy to use:

Mozilla Firefox
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

One more suggestion is to disable your Windows Messenger service. This
service is not used frequently (if at all) by the normal home user and
in cooperation with a good firewall, is generally unnecessary. Microsoft
has instructions on how to do this for Windows XP here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/howto/communicate/stopspam.asp


So your machine is pretty clean and up to date now. If you use the sections
above as a guide, it should stay that way as well! There are still a few
more
little things you can do to keep your machine running in top shape.


Tip (11):
You should periodically check your hard drive(s) for errors and defragment
them. Only defragment after you have cleaned up your machine of
outside parasites and never defragment as a solution to a quirkiness in
your system. It may help speed up your system, but it should be clean
before you do this.

How to use Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=310312

How to scan your disks for errors
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=315265

How to Defragment your hard drives
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314848

I would personally perform the above steps at least once every three months.
For most people this should be sufficient, but if the difference you notice
afterwards is greater than you think it should be, lessen the time in
between
its schedule.. If the difference you notice is negligible, you can increase
the time.


Tip (12):
SPAM! JUNK MAIL!
This one can get annoying, just like the rest. You get 50 emails in one
sitting and 2 of them you wanted. NICE! (Not.) What can you do? Well,
although there are services out there to help you, some email
servers/services that actually do lower your spam with features built into
their servers - I still like the methods that let you be the end-decision
maker on what is spam and what is not. I have two products to suggest to
you, look at them and see if either of them suite your needs. Again, if
they don't, Google is free and available for your perusal.

SpamBayes (Free!)
http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

Spamihilator (Free!)
http://www.spamihilator.com/

As I said, those are not your only options, but are reliable ones I have
seen function for hundreds+ people.


Tip (13):
ADVANCED TIP! Only do this once you are comfortable under the hood of your
computer!

There are lots of services on your PC that are probably turned on by default
you don't use. Why have them on? Check out these web pages to see what all
of the services you might find on your computer are and set them according
to
your personal needs. Be CAREFUL what you set to manual, and take heed and
write down as you change things! Also, don't expect a large performance
increase or anything - especially on today’s 2+ GHz machines, however - I
look
at each service you set to manual as one less service you have to worry
about
someone exploiting. A year ago, I would have thought the Windows Messenger
service to be pretty safe, now I recommend (with addition of a firewall)
that most home users disable it! Yeah - this is another one you have to
work for, but your computer may speed up and/or be more secure because you
took the time. And if you document what you do as you do it, next time, it
goes MUCH faster! (or if you have to go back and re-enable things..)

Task List Programs
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm

Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/

There are also applications that AREN'T services that startup when you start
up the computer/logon. One of the better description on how to handle these
I have found here:

Startups
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php


If you follow the advice laid out above (and do some of your own research as
well, so you understand what you are doing) - your computer will stay fairly
stable and secure and you will have a more trouble-free system.

You don't have to drink Coca-Cola because the commercial says so.
You don't have to wear Levi's blue jeans because the advertisement says you
should.
It must be hard to look through a sunday newspaper.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.

[Ody]

The question is, what is at issue to not upgrade? It is now 4/2005, and it is
quite normal to see an OS go through SP revisions. I don't think MS is going
to stop offering security patches for XP SP1 anytime soon, but you should
have it on your radar. SP2 is not all security updates either.

As far as shoving of down of throats, I would percieve you are reacting a
little harshly on marketing. Of course MS wants people on the latest SP.

"Sitara Lal" wrote:

> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.
>
>
>

[PA Bear]

What about the threat your unpatched machine may be to other users on the
internet?
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (Shell, IE/OE) & Security

Mastering Newsgroups in Outlook Express
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/newsgroups.mspx

Sitara Lal wrote:
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.

[Treeman]

[QUOTE=SNIPO[/QUOTE]
Hi Sitara,
Follow along and then decide for yourself.
"A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
updated to work with SP2, and most companies have patched their software for SP2."
Less than a quarter of businesses in North America have installed Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) according to a new study, April 05, 2005 by AssetMetrix.
SC Magazine (http://www.scmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsDetails&newsUID=aa4b5e12-d883-4108-b504-222e5d7b4154&newsType=Latest%20News&s=n)

"Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
it also updates over 5 million lines of code to enhance the performance
of Windows XP."
Google Search; XP SP2 Problems
Results 1 - 10 of about 965,000 for XP SP2 Problems

"-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
Sorry, but that's not correct either.
Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer.

USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from, and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower, less-efficient data flow control)

"Why does MS seem to almost shove it down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.
The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down your throat.
My2cents,
Treeman

[Kelly]

> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?

They aren't, it may just be the way you are perceiving it. I for one, don't
believe in updates. I go along with the saying if it ain't broke, don't fix
it. However; and that said, I do have SP2 installed on two of my five
systems here for testing.

Added info:

Temporarily Disabling Delivery of Windows XP Service Pack 2 through
Windows Update and Automatic Updates
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/sp2aumng.mspx

--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

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


"Sitara Lal" > wrote in message
...
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.
>
>

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Treeman

I don't see the point in having to be always fully alert when there are
devices, programs, and updates available that will allow me to relax
sometimes.. I want to give my time to being productive, and that does not
include having to be on full alert against every little thing lurking in the
shadows.. having a rearguard in enemy territory is not a sign of weakness..
it helps the operative get the main job done..

Nobody is being forced to accept SP2.. it can still be stopped.. nobody is
being forced to use a firewall or anti-virus protection other than some
companies that insist ALL workstations run av programs, scanning software
reporting back to system admin the names of operators who fail to ensure
that it is running AND updated.. if you and others feel that a rearguard in
some way diminishes your perceived competence, then so be it and good luck
to you..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Treeman" > wrote in message
...
>
> SNIPO[/QUOTE Wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sitara,
>> Follow along and then decide for yourself.
>> "A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
>> updated to work with SP2, and
>> _most_companies_have_patched_their_software_for_SP 2.\"_
>> LESS THAN A QUARTER OF BUSINESSES IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE INSTALLED
>> WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2 (SP2) ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY, APRIL 05,
>> 2005 BY ASSETMETRIX.
>> 'SC Magazine' (http://tinyurl.com/6av5r)
>>
>> "Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
>> it also updates over 5 million lines of code to _enhance_ the
>> performance
>> of Windows XP."
>> GOOGLE SEARCH; XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>> RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 965,000 FOR XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>
>> "-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
>> SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT EITHER. [/B]
>> ARCHITECTURE - FIREWIRE VS. USB 2.0
>> FIREWIRE, BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR SPEED, USES A
>> \"PEER-TO-PEER\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE PERIPHERALS ARE INTELLIGENT
>> AND CAN NEGOTIATE BUS CONFLICTS TO DETERMINE WHICH DEVICE CAN BEST
>> CONTROL A DATA TRANSFER.
>>
>> USB 2.0 USES A \"MASTER-SLAVE\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE COMPUTER
>> HANDLES ALL ARBITRATION FUNCTIONS AND DICTATES DATA FLOW TO, FROM, AND
>> BETWEEN THE ATTACHED PERIPHERALS (ADDING ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OVERHEAD AND
>> RESULTING IN SLOWER, LESS-EFFICIENT DATA FLOW CONTROL)
>>
>> [B]\"WHY DOES MS SEEM TO ALMOST SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS - AFTER ALL
>> WE ARE ALL GROWN UP AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER WE NEED THAT
>> 'EXTRA PROTECTION' OR NOT.
>> The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't
>> understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down
>> your throat.
>> My2cents,
>> Treeman
>
>
> --
> Treeman

[R. McCarty]

Here's the dilemma. Microsoft gets bashed for lack of Security in it's
OS product line. They opt for more Security in deference to "Ease
of Use" in SP2. Now, the complaint is Microsoft forcing SP2 onto
unwilling customers.
As to Enterprise adoption rates - They want stability and even the
monthly updates gives them support issues. Couple that with the fact
that most IT departments are outsourced - you've got even more of
a "Lag/Procrastination" factor in play. One other "Big" issue with SP2
in Enterprise environments are "In-House" developed apps that have
issues with Service Pack 2.
It's unfortunate that companies ask for more Security and then when
it's available balk at implementing it.


"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" > wrote in message
...
> Treeman
>
> I don't see the point in having to be always fully alert when there are
> devices, programs, and updates available that will allow me to relax
> sometimes.. I want to give my time to being productive, and that does not
> include having to be on full alert against every little thing lurking in
> the shadows.. having a rearguard in enemy territory is not a sign of
> weakness.. it helps the operative get the main job done..
>
> Nobody is being forced to accept SP2.. it can still be stopped.. nobody is
> being forced to use a firewall or anti-virus protection other than some
> companies that insist ALL workstations run av programs, scanning software
> reporting back to system admin the names of operators who fail to ensure
> that it is running AND updated.. if you and others feel that a rearguard
> in some way diminishes your perceived competence, then so be it and good
> luck to you..
>
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "Treeman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> SNIPO[/QUOTE Wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sitara,
>>> Follow along and then decide for yourself.
>>> "A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
>>> updated to work with SP2, and
>>> _most_companies_have_patched_their_software_for_SP 2.\"_
>>> LESS THAN A QUARTER OF BUSINESSES IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE INSTALLED
>>> WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2 (SP2) ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY, APRIL 05,
>>> 2005 BY ASSETMETRIX.
>>> 'SC Magazine' (http://tinyurl.com/6av5r)
>>>
>>> "Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
>>> it also updates over 5 million lines of code to _enhance_ the
>>> performance
>>> of Windows XP."
>>> GOOGLE SEARCH; XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>> RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 965,000 FOR XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>
>>> "-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
>>> SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT EITHER. [/B]
>>> ARCHITECTURE - FIREWIRE VS. USB 2.0
>>> FIREWIRE, BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR SPEED, USES A
>>> \"PEER-TO-PEER\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE PERIPHERALS ARE INTELLIGENT
>>> AND CAN NEGOTIATE BUS CONFLICTS TO DETERMINE WHICH DEVICE CAN BEST
>>> CONTROL A DATA TRANSFER.
>>>
>>> USB 2.0 USES A \"MASTER-SLAVE\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE COMPUTER
>>> HANDLES ALL ARBITRATION FUNCTIONS AND DICTATES DATA FLOW TO, FROM, AND
>>> BETWEEN THE ATTACHED PERIPHERALS (ADDING ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OVERHEAD AND
>>> RESULTING IN SLOWER, LESS-EFFICIENT DATA FLOW CONTROL)
>>>
>>> [B]\"WHY DOES MS SEEM TO ALMOST SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS - AFTER ALL
>>> WE ARE ALL GROWN UP AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER WE NEED THAT
>>> 'EXTRA PROTECTION' OR NOT.
>>> The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't
>>> understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down
>>> your throat.
>>> My2cents,
>>> Treeman
>>
>>
>> --
>> Treeman
>
>

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

R

Custom made programs were a seen as a problem around the time of the Y2K era
too.. we all knew that Y2K may be an issue long before the date change, and
in many cases, companies drew up huge plans and paid huge amounts of money
in order to defend against it..

Security has long been an issue in the IT world, and those that call for it
have to accept any measures that are created to help.. Microsoft did their
bit in developing SP2 which was in beta form for quite a while, released in
final form for a while, and after calls from industry, gave them a way to
stop SP2 automatically loading.. if those same companies have sat on their
butts and done little or nothing to incorporating SP2 since that time, then
they have only themselves to blame.. likewise home users.. I understand that
money constraints may affect a home user more than the corporate world in
that the home user can't recover costs through tax breaks.. the choice
giving up using an old application or giving up security is a choice that
they and they alone will have to make..

... And congratulations, R.. welcome to the 'club'.. no profanity or spitting
allowed.. hard hat to be always worn when on site..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"R. McCarty" > wrote in message
...
> Here's the dilemma. Microsoft gets bashed for lack of Security in it's
> OS product line. They opt for more Security in deference to "Ease
> of Use" in SP2. Now, the complaint is Microsoft forcing SP2 onto
> unwilling customers.
> As to Enterprise adoption rates - They want stability and even the
> monthly updates gives them support issues. Couple that with the fact
> that most IT departments are outsourced - you've got even more of
> a "Lag/Procrastination" factor in play. One other "Big" issue with SP2
> in Enterprise environments are "In-House" developed apps that have
> issues with Service Pack 2.
> It's unfortunate that companies ask for more Security and then when
> it's available balk at implementing it.
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Treeman
>>
>> I don't see the point in having to be always fully alert when there are
>> devices, programs, and updates available that will allow me to relax
>> sometimes.. I want to give my time to being productive, and that does not
>> include having to be on full alert against every little thing lurking in
>> the shadows.. having a rearguard in enemy territory is not a sign of
>> weakness.. it helps the operative get the main job done..
>>
>> Nobody is being forced to accept SP2.. it can still be stopped.. nobody
>> is being forced to use a firewall or anti-virus protection other than
>> some companies that insist ALL workstations run av programs, scanning
>> software reporting back to system admin the names of operators who fail
>> to ensure that it is running AND updated.. if you and others feel that a
>> rearguard in some way diminishes your perceived competence, then so be it
>> and good luck to you..
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Treeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> SNIPO[/QUOTE Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sitara,
>>>> Follow along and then decide for yourself.
>>>> "A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
>>>> updated to work with SP2, and
>>>> _most_companies_have_patched_their_software_for_SP 2.\"_
>>>> LESS THAN A QUARTER OF BUSINESSES IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE INSTALLED
>>>> WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2 (SP2) ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY, APRIL 05,
>>>> 2005 BY ASSETMETRIX.
>>>> 'SC Magazine' (http://tinyurl.com/6av5r)
>>>>
>>>> "Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
>>>> it also updates over 5 million lines of code to _enhance_ the
>>>> performance
>>>> of Windows XP."
>>>> GOOGLE SEARCH; XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>> RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 965,000 FOR XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>>
>>>> "-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
>>>> SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT EITHER. [/B]
>>>> ARCHITECTURE - FIREWIRE VS. USB 2.0
>>>> FIREWIRE, BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR SPEED, USES A
>>>> \"PEER-TO-PEER\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE PERIPHERALS ARE INTELLIGENT
>>>> AND CAN NEGOTIATE BUS CONFLICTS TO DETERMINE WHICH DEVICE CAN BEST
>>>> CONTROL A DATA TRANSFER.
>>>>
>>>> USB 2.0 USES A \"MASTER-SLAVE\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE COMPUTER
>>>> HANDLES ALL ARBITRATION FUNCTIONS AND DICTATES DATA FLOW TO, FROM, AND
>>>> BETWEEN THE ATTACHED PERIPHERALS (ADDING ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OVERHEAD AND
>>>> RESULTING IN SLOWER, LESS-EFFICIENT DATA FLOW CONTROL)
>>>>
>>>> [B]\"WHY DOES MS SEEM TO ALMOST SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS - AFTER ALL
>>>> WE ARE ALL GROWN UP AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER WE NEED THAT
>>>> 'EXTRA PROTECTION' OR NOT.
>>>> The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't
>>>> understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down
>>>> your throat.
>>>> My2cents,
>>>> Treeman
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Treeman
>>
>>
>
>

[Don Taylor]

"R. McCarty" > writes:
> Here's the dilemma. Microsoft gets bashed for lack of Security in it's
>OS product line. They opt for more Security in deference to "Ease
>of Use" in SP2. Now, the complaint is Microsoft forcing SP2 onto
>unwilling customers.
> As to Enterprise adoption rates - They want stability and even the
>monthly updates gives them support issues. Couple that with the fact
>that most IT departments are outsourced - you've got even more of
>a "Lag/Procrastination" factor in play. One other "Big" issue with SP2
>in Enterprise environments are "In-House" developed apps that have
>issues with Service Pack 2.
> It's unfortunate that companies ask for more Security and then when
>it's available balk at implementing it.

It's unfortunate the way at least a handful of things about SP2
were handled, and that trivial little changes, not rocket science,
could have made them far better.

It's unfortunate that this whole "forcing it down people's throats"
business was entirely the result of the way that Microsoft worded
that little announcement about the 6 month delay. Nobody went out
and dreamed up that Microsoft made the announcement of 6 months the
way they did. Had that little announcement been worded slightly
differently this mess could have been likely avoided. It wouldn't
have taken rocket science to see how some would interpret that or
to have a very good estimate of how fast SP2 would be adopted.

It's unfortunate that the stream of "I have the home version of XP,
where is SP2 for it" and the "My splash screen took away Pro, or
Home, is this broken" and I'm guessing maybe the vast majority of
little misunderstandings about SP2 were because someone at Microsoft
forgot to include the little "Top 20 Questions about SP2 you just
installed, ANSWERED!" Who knows who it was that forgot to include
that little file. It would have defused lots of people's confusion
and questions. It wouldn't have taken rocket science to include
that.

It's unfortunate that supposedly a $1 billion was spent on SP2
because of all the compromised machines out there but that nothing
appears to have been built into the installation process itself to
deal with the fact that it might be being installed onto a compromised
machine. Only months later did Microsoft's web site get updated
to begin addressing the business of what you should have done before
you tried to install SP2. It wouldn't have taken rocket science
to check for the "it is all viruses and spyware" that has been
chanted 10^19 times here. It wouldn't have taken rocket science
to build a database of known problem app and dll and driver versions
and have the install process warn about those before install failed.

It's unfortunate that for months after SP2 was released it was
repeatedly claimed that SP2 did NOTHING to fix any problem with
software that you might already have, that if you had an existing
problem don't think SP2 was going to fix it, find a way to fix that
yourself before you even think of installing SP2. I thought this
was the silliest claim I had seen in years. Nobody spends years
combing software looking for massive fu&k-ups but not actually
fixing any of them. Only months later did Microsoft's web site
finally actually admit that yes they had fixed hundreds of existing
bugs in the product and provide a laundry list of hundreds of
existing problems that SP2 did fix. It wouldn't have taken rocket
science to change that.

I'd make a wild guess and say that perhaps more than half the issues
people had with SP2 could have been avoided if these non-rocket-science
relatively trivial little things, far simpler than "rewriting
millions of lines of code", had been done.

>"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" > wrote in message
...
>> Treeman
>>
>> I don't see the point in having to be always fully alert when there are
>> devices, programs, and updates available that will allow me to relax
>> sometimes.. I want to give my time to being productive, and that does not
>> include having to be on full alert against every little thing lurking in
>> the shadows.. having a rearguard in enemy territory is not a sign of
>> weakness.. it helps the operative get the main job done..
>>
>> Nobody is being forced to accept SP2.. it can still be stopped.. nobody is
>> being forced to use a firewall or anti-virus protection other than some
>> companies that insist ALL workstations run av programs, scanning software
>> reporting back to system admin the names of operators who fail to ensure
>> that it is running AND updated.. if you and others feel that a rearguard
>> in some way diminishes your perceived competence, then so be it and good
>> luck to you..
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Treeman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> SNIPO[/QUOTE Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sitara,
>>>> Follow along and then decide for yourself.
>>>> "A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
>>>> updated to work with SP2, and
>>>> _most_companies_have_patched_their_software_for_SP 2.\"_
>>>> LESS THAN A QUARTER OF BUSINESSES IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE INSTALLED
>>>> WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2 (SP2) ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY, APRIL 05,
>>>> 2005 BY ASSETMETRIX.
>>>> 'SC Magazine' (http://tinyurl.com/6av5r)
>>>>
>>>> "Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
>>>> it also updates over 5 million lines of code to _enhance_ the
>>>> performance
>>>> of Windows XP."
>>>> GOOGLE SEARCH; XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>> RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 965,000 FOR XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>>
>>>> "-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
>>>> SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT EITHER. [/B]
>>>> ARCHITECTURE - FIREWIRE VS. USB 2.0
>>>> FIREWIRE, BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR SPEED, USES A
>>>> \"PEER-TO-PEER\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE PERIPHERALS ARE INTELLIGENT
>>>> AND CAN NEGOTIATE BUS CONFLICTS TO DETERMINE WHICH DEVICE CAN BEST
>>>> CONTROL A DATA TRANSFER.
>>>>
>>>> USB 2.0 USES A \"MASTER-SLAVE\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE COMPUTER
>>>> HANDLES ALL ARBITRATION FUNCTIONS AND DICTATES DATA FLOW TO, FROM, AND
>>>> BETWEEN THE ATTACHED PERIPHERALS (ADDING ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OVERHEAD AND
>>>> RESULTING IN SLOWER, LESS-EFFICIENT DATA FLOW CONTROL)
>>>>
>>>> [B]\"WHY DOES MS SEEM TO ALMOST SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS - AFTER ALL
>>>> WE ARE ALL GROWN UP AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER WE NEED THAT
>>>> 'EXTRA PROTECTION' OR NOT.
>>>> The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't
>>>> understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down
>>>> your throat.
>>>> My2cents,
>>>> Treeman
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Treeman
>>
>>

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Microsoft is "so keen" because SP-2 make computers more secure.
You most likely need SP-2.
Or are you referring to the misinformation stating SP-2 will be forced on a
computer?
If so that is simply not true.
You can easily control the installation of SP-2 the same as any other
update.
In fact there is another step you need to take with SP-2.
SP-2 will not install unless you also accept the EULA:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/forcesp2.htm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Sitara Lal" > wrote in message
...
> Why is MS so keen to have as many XP users ''upgrade' to SP2 as possible?
> Even if SP2 offers superior security, why does MS seem to almost shove it
> down our throats - after all we are all grown up and can decide for
> ourselves whether we need that 'extra protection' or not.

[Lou]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:14:46 GMT, Leythos > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:51:39 -0500, Don Taylor wrote:
>>
>> I'd make a wild guess and say that perhaps more than half the issues
>> people had with SP2 could have been avoided if these non-rocket-science
>> relatively trivial little things, far simpler than "rewriting millions
>> of lines of code", had been done.
>
>The above pretty much sums up your entire rant/post. What you failed to
>understand is that it's UP TO YOU to make sure that a system and installed
>applications/hardware works with anything else you install, including
>service packs.
>
>MS has always been quite clear about updates/service packs - you should
>test them on non-critical machines before you roll them out. Any competent
>computer person already knows this, even if they ignore it.
>
>Yes, there are applications that don't work well with SP2, but, it was up
>to YOU to check with the vendor and test them on a non-critical/production
>machine before making the change on those types of machines.
>
>As for compromised machines, heck, if people are ignorant enough to get
>compromised, then install anything and blame the anything, they are just
>too ignorant to be using computers in the first place (yea, that will
>offend those types of people, but, it's really simple, if you can't
>maintain it, get someone that can).

Sure! All home users have a non-critical machine upon which to test
MS critical updates. Sure! Getting a virus or malware identifies
folks who are too ignorant to be using computers.

This kind of post renders all your other post questionable. You are
some piece of work Leythos!

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Whether Home users have a "non-critical machine" to test is not really
relevant.
No one including Microsoft can test on all possible combinations of Windows
XP Computers when you take into account the total number with no two
identical.
If the home user bought the computer from an OEM or other similar source,
the OEM should be contacted about compatibility issues.
They had the necessary information available months before SP-2 was released
to prevent SP-2 issues on their computers.
If the user built the computer themselves, then it is up to them to verify
compatibility of the various components.
That is another of the costs of building the computer yourself.
If the owner made any changes, then the owner needs to take responsibility
for those changes and possible effects.

It largely comes down to who owns and uses the computer, you, Microsoft, the
manufacturer or other.
I don't know about you, but I own and use my computers.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


<Lou> wrote in message ...
> Sure! All home users have a non-critical machine upon which to test
> MS critical updates. Sure! Getting a virus or malware identifies
> folks who are too ignorant to be using computers.
>
> This kind of post renders all your other post questionable. You are
> some piece of work Leythos!

[Lou]

I don't disagree with what you've stated. But that is irrelevant.

I responded to Leythos's post in which he states testing on
non-critical machine is MS and his suggestion. He futher states
anyone who gets viruses or malware is too ignorant to be using
computers.

I own and use my computers in a manner I see fit. But Leythos seems
to disparage anyone who does not behave as he does.

Since you replied to my reply to Leythos, perhaps you want to clarify
your position relative to Leythos's statements.


On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:40:46 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> wrote:

>Whether Home users have a "non-critical machine" to test is not really
>relevant.
>No one including Microsoft can test on all possible combinations of Windows
>XP Computers when you take into account the total number with no two
>identical.
>If the home user bought the computer from an OEM or other similar source,
>the OEM should be contacted about compatibility issues.
>They had the necessary information available months before SP-2 was released
>to prevent SP-2 issues on their computers.
>If the user built the computer themselves, then it is up to them to verify
>compatibility of the various components.
>That is another of the costs of building the computer yourself.
>If the owner made any changes, then the owner needs to take responsibility
>for those changes and possible effects.
>
>It largely comes down to who owns and uses the computer, you, Microsoft, the
>manufacturer or other.
>I don't know about you, but I own and use my computers.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I would not go so far as to say all with compromised computers are ignorant.
But some are, whether some is 2% or 98% is another story.
Most malware is avoidable with safe computing and many users have not yet
learned and others are learning now how to take care of their computer.
Not knowing how may be called ignorance.
Leythos also says "then install anything", that suggests those that install
almost anything possibly because it seem good at the time.

People have come a long way in the past few years, but we still have a long
way to go to keep our computers secure.
Unfortunately it often seems those creating malware are moving at least as
fast.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


<Lou> wrote in message ...
>I don't disagree with what you've stated. But that is irrelevant.
>
> I responded to Leythos's post in which he states testing on
> non-critical machine is MS and his suggestion. He futher states
> anyone who gets viruses or malware is too ignorant to be using
> computers.
>
> I own and use my computers in a manner I see fit. But Leythos seems
> to disparage anyone who does not behave as he does.
>
> Since you replied to my reply to Leythos, perhaps you want to clarify
> your position relative to Leythos's statements.
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:40:46 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> > wrote:
>
>>Whether Home users have a "non-critical machine" to test is not really
>>relevant.
>>No one including Microsoft can test on all possible combinations of
>>Windows
>>XP Computers when you take into account the total number with no two
>>identical.
>>If the home user bought the computer from an OEM or other similar source,
>>the OEM should be contacted about compatibility issues.
>>They had the necessary information available months before SP-2 was
>>released
>>to prevent SP-2 issues on their computers.
>>If the user built the computer themselves, then it is up to them to verify
>>compatibility of the various components.
>>That is another of the costs of building the computer yourself.
>>If the owner made any changes, then the owner needs to take responsibility
>>for those changes and possible effects.
>>
>>It largely comes down to who owns and uses the computer, you, Microsoft,
>>the
>>manufacturer or other.
>>I don't know about you, but I own and use my computers.
>

[R. McCarty]

A Personal Computer has still not reached the appliance status. It
still requires some level of involvement to maintain safety. SP2 does
help with a baseline Firewall and everyone should have AV running.
But even with that, indiscriminate downloads, P2P and opening the
socially engineered Spam leaves the PC exposed. Most people do
want to be safe, it's just a lack of knowledge about what they need
to do and not do when using a PC.
I've never had someone who asks about safety, fail to get or use a
recommended solution.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
>I would not go so far as to say all with compromised computers are
>ignorant.
> But some are, whether some is 2% or 98% is another story.
> Most malware is avoidable with safe computing and many users have not yet
> learned and others are learning now how to take care of their computer.
> Not knowing how may be called ignorance.
> Leythos also says "then install anything", that suggests those that
> install almost anything possibly because it seem good at the time.
>
> People have come a long way in the past few years, but we still have a
> long way to go to keep our computers secure.
> Unfortunately it often seems those creating malware are moving at least as
> fast.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> <Lou> wrote in message ...
>>I don't disagree with what you've stated. But that is irrelevant.
>>
>> I responded to Leythos's post in which he states testing on
>> non-critical machine is MS and his suggestion. He futher states
>> anyone who gets viruses or malware is too ignorant to be using
>> computers.
>>
>> I own and use my computers in a manner I see fit. But Leythos seems
>> to disparage anyone who does not behave as he does.
>>
>> Since you replied to my reply to Leythos, perhaps you want to clarify
>> your position relative to Leythos's statements.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:40:46 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Whether Home users have a "non-critical machine" to test is not really
>>>relevant.
>>>No one including Microsoft can test on all possible combinations of
>>>Windows
>>>XP Computers when you take into account the total number with no two
>>>identical.
>>>If the home user bought the computer from an OEM or other similar source,
>>>the OEM should be contacted about compatibility issues.
>>>They had the necessary information available months before SP-2 was
>>>released
>>>to prevent SP-2 issues on their computers.
>>>If the user built the computer themselves, then it is up to them to
>>>verify
>>>compatibility of the various components.
>>>That is another of the costs of building the computer yourself.
>>>If the owner made any changes, then the owner needs to take
>>>responsibility
>>>for those changes and possible effects.
>>>
>>>It largely comes down to who owns and uses the computer, you, Microsoft,
>>>the
>>>manufacturer or other.
>>>I don't know about you, but I own and use my computers.
>>
>
>

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

Lou

I know of more than a few people who accepted the SP2 update with little
idea of what it was, and whose machines worked perfectly well after the
install..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





<Lou> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:14:46 GMT, Leythos > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:51:39 -0500, Don Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd make a wild guess and say that perhaps more than half the issues
>>> people had with SP2 could have been avoided if these non-rocket-science
>>> relatively trivial little things, far simpler than "rewriting millions
>>> of lines of code", had been done.
>>
>>The above pretty much sums up your entire rant/post. What you failed to
>>understand is that it's UP TO YOU to make sure that a system and installed
>>applications/hardware works with anything else you install, including
>>service packs.
>>
>>MS has always been quite clear about updates/service packs - you should
>>test them on non-critical machines before you roll them out. Any competent
>>computer person already knows this, even if they ignore it.
>>
>>Yes, there are applications that don't work well with SP2, but, it was up
>>to YOU to check with the vendor and test them on a non-critical/production
>>machine before making the change on those types of machines.
>>
>>As for compromised machines, heck, if people are ignorant enough to get
>>compromised, then install anything and blame the anything, they are just
>>too ignorant to be using computers in the first place (yea, that will
>>offend those types of people, but, it's really simple, if you can't
>>maintain it, get someone that can).
>
> Sure! All home users have a non-critical machine upon which to test
> MS critical updates. Sure! Getting a virus or malware identifies
> folks who are too ignorant to be using computers.
>
> This kind of post renders all your other post questionable. You are
> some piece of work Leythos!

[Lou]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:19:27 GMT, Leythos > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:22:51 -0700, Lou wrote:
>>
>> Sure! All home users have a non-critical machine upon which to test MS
>> critical updates.
>
>How hard is it to check with the software vendors to see if a update/SP is
>approved for their application? About as easy as going to the vendors
>website and checking, or calling them, or sending them an email. If the
>vendor has already tested it the home user doesn't really need to have a
>test machine to validate it.
>
>Since the day personal computers hit the market for the common person
>(around 76), there has been a need for proper backups. It doesn't matter
>if the user is one of the ignorant masses (notice I didn't say stupid, I
>mean Ignorant), or if they are just plain lazy, a proper backup is always
>the method to follow BEFORE making any changes to a computer system.
>Anyone that has 5 minutes to read about updates/SP will see that a proper
>backup is always requested/advised before the installation.
>
>If the information has been available since the mid 70's, and people don't
>already know about it, then it's a classic case of ignorance - often self
>imposed ignorance due to laziness.
>
>> Sure! Getting a virus or malware identifies folks who are too ignorant
>> to be using computers.
>
>In the US there is hardly a person that hasn't read about or learned about
>those things called VIRUSES. There are almost no people that own computers
>that have not already been told about Identity theft in the media or from
>friends. There are almost no people that WANT those two things to happen
>to them.
>
>Being the above is true, the only reason it happens is, again, ignorance.
>They have not taken the time to learn something as basic as securing their
>computer by any means. How can you argue that those people are not
>ignorant - note, there is a difference between being ignorant and being
>stupid.
>
>> This kind of post renders all your other post questionable. You are
>> some piece of work Leythos!
>
>Yea, if you question my other replies/posts, I suspect you are one of
>those that had a compromised machine and you don't want to believe that
>you could have prevented it with just a little care on your part. Just
>look at the MS website, look at security, and start reading - if you can
>afford a computer/time to use it, you can spend some time learning about
>it too, it will save you a lot of time/money later.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is a non-zero probability I have
forgotten more computer technical matter than you've ever amassed.

>
>I get really tired of the ignorant masses complaining about their systems
>being compromised or losing all of their data due to a fault - they didn't
>take the time to do a backup at any time, didn't update the virus
>software, didn't secure their computers, didn't think it would happen to
>them.....

If you get so tired of the ignorant, compromised whining masses, get
another avocation. Belittling others in your pompous manner is
unbecoming.
>
>The simple fact is that anyone with a clue understood what SP2 was, to
>read about it before installing it, and to have a backup also - anyone
>that didn't either didn't care if something broke, or they were just
>another one of the ignorant masses.

Of course you are not and have never been one of the ignorant masses
relative to any subject matter known to man. Grow up!!

[Don Taylor]

Leythos > writes:
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:51:39 -0500, Don Taylor wrote:
>> I'd make a wild guess and say that perhaps more than half the issues
>> people had with SP2 could have been avoided if these non-rocket-science
>> relatively trivial little things, far simpler than "rewriting millions
>> of lines of code", had been done.

>As for compromised machines, heck, if people are ignorant enough to get
>compromised, then install anything and blame the anything, they are just
>too ignorant to be using computers in the first place (yea, that will
>offend those types of people, but, it's really simple, if you can't
>maintain it, get someone that can).

If that is your argument then why did they bother with SP2 at all?
Would have saved them a billion bucks and they could have ignored it.

[t0m]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:45:59 GMT, Leythos > wrote:

>I currently
>own a company that provides network and security design services to
>companies all across the USA.

Do you entertain network setup questions with network idiots like me
via email? I don't wish to bother everyone with network question in a
windows forum and I can't seem to get anyone to answer my questions in
the network groups.

Thank you in Advance,
t0m

[t0m]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:13:49 GMT, Leythos > wrote:

>I would rather you post your question in Usenet than send it
>directly to me - your question might help others in the future. There is
>also a chance that someone may come up with a better solution than I may,
>or they may agree with my solution and make it easier for you to determine
>your own solution path.

Well, last time I posted an "off topic" question in a group, I got my
arse reamed for doing so. Not that I can't take a good arse reaming
(30 year military, retired) but it seems to be the game of the day for
a lot on these groups so I have decided to tread lightly so as to not
be the instrument of any of the millions of stupid fires starting up
out there. Soooo....... If you please....... I will start a new
thread called "Networking with Leythos" and ask my question there so
as not to disrupt this ongoing thread we are now in.

Regards,
t0m

[Treeman]

[QUOTE=It's unfortunate the way at least a handful of things about SP2
were handled, and that trivial little changes, not rocket science,
could have made them far better.
[/QUOTE]

I think your right Don.
If SP2 was a virtual install the first time you used it, with a log file of incompatabilities it saw, it would have helped people see what they needed to do, (get rid of spyware, update drivers, etc.) to actually run it without problems.
Now BG is off on a program to sell us on the merits of XP and how to use it.
Meanwhile the April 12 auto-updates have hosed some computers to the point of non-functionality again!
People don't want to fix their computers, they want to use them. That's what's expected from MS by the end user. That's why they picked the OS to start with. It did such a good job of interfacing applications with drivers & devices. Now it's locked down so hard, to some it's unusable.
If I wanted a lego-set OS, I'd run out and get Linux, (no diss penguin) and build my own operating system.
Come on guy's, quit pointing the finger at the end-user long enough to admit that SP2 could have been rolled out better.
Treeman

[Jone Doe]

"_People_don't_want_to_fix_their_computers,_they_wa nt_to_use_them._"

What, change the oil and make sure there is air in the tires? I bought this
car to drive it, not to work on it.

">> That's what's expected from MS by the end user. That's why they picked
>> the OS to start with. It did such a good job of interfacing"

The ads said "Like a rock" and that's why I bought a Chevy in the first
place.


"Treeman" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's unfortunate the way at least a handful of things about SP2
> were handled, and that trivial little changes, not rocket science,
> could have made them far better.
> [/QUOTE Wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think your right Don.
>> If SP2 was a virtual install the first time you used it, with a log
>> file of incompatabilities it saw, it would have helped people see what
>> they needed to do, (get rid of spyware, update drivers, etc.) to
>> actually run it without problems.
>> Now BG is off on a program to sell us on the merits of XP and how to
>> use it.
>> Meanwhile the April 12 auto-updates have hosed some computers to the
>> point of non-functionality again!
>> _People_don't_want_to_fix_their_computers,_they_wa nt_to_use_them._
>> That's what's expected from MS by the end user. That's why they picked
>> the OS to start with. It did such a good job of interfacing
>> applications with drivers & devices. Now it's locked down so hard, to
>> some it's unusable.
>> If I wanted a lego-set OS, I'd run out and get Linux, (no diss penguin)
>> and build my own operating system.
>> Come on guy's, quit pointing the finger at the end-user long enough to
>> admit that SP2 could have been rolled out better.
>> Treeman
>
>
> --
> Treeman

[Shooter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:21:11 -0500, "Jone Doe" >
wrote:

>"_People_don't_want_to_fix_their_computers,_they_wa nt_to_use_them._"
>
>What, change the oil and make sure there is air in the tires? I bought this
>car to drive it, not to work on it.

Hi Jane.... Actually it is hard for people that try to maintain some
resemblance of computing knowledge by following the related news
groups and research related tech sites, like those on here, to
understand that the majority of computer users out there (your basic,
run of the mill, Mom & Pop computer owner) do not have a clue beyond
how to turn it on, write the kiddies a letter and then turn it back
off. They do not change the oil in their car and check the air in
their tires any more than checking the health of their computer.

I wouldn't be afraid to guess that 90% of the computing public know
nothing more, nor want to know any more, than the above example of Mom
& Pop. The only reason that most/some of them are up-to-date on their
criticals is that their copy of XP is set to do auto upgrade downloads
and installs only because XP comes defaulted to do it that way.
Otherwise, they wouldn't even be getting critical updates.

In short, the biggest majority of the computing public is
computer/computing illiterate. This is not to say they are stupid...
They just never had the formal evolution associated with growing up
with a computer that anyone born after 1980 was privileged with.

Now, it is easy for us to say, "they should get a clue" or "they need
to get off the pot and educate themselves". Myself being from the
same generation as the majority, I did educate myself, or at least
educated myself enough to keep out of most trouble associated with
computers. But that is only because I developed an interest in
computers beyond your basic turn it on, word process your business and
turn it off level of understanding. I have a "SEMI" clue I guess.

Anyway, it would seem that Bill Gates assumes that everyone has the
mental metal that his "so called" system developers have. In other
words, here is a complicated upgrade that will only work if you have
your system wired tight like people in the know do. Well, if you are
one of the 90% of the computing public that are not in the know, then
you are going to get bit. In the beginning of SP2, Bill Gates made it
an auto download/install feature of XP update. He did not take into
account that 90% of the public's computers were not "Wired Tight",
clean and ready for that level of upgrade. He didn't even incorporate
code in the upgrade to check for compatibility or "known" problem
areas and program the upgrade to NOT install if certain parameters
were not met. I call that corporate level arrogance or.... Here it
is.... Good Luck!

Now we have another critical that has come out and is wrecking havoc
with some systems. And this one seems to be biting even systems that
belong to people that do have a clue. Its getting to be business as
usual when associating MS with system meltdowns. And MS just keeps
putting them out there without any regard to the computing public....
Here it is.... Good Luck!

I have a friend who's son worked for MS a few years back before moving
on. He says that the mentality of MS was to "code it up as quickly as
possible and throw it out there and see what happens". Well, with
what I have seen going on these past few years, I am inclined to
believe what his son says was and is the on-going philosophy at MS.

Don't get me wrong... I am not a windows hater. I like XP and have
never had a meltdown associated with an upgrade (Knock On Wood).
However, its MS's ethics (or lack of) and how they indiscriminately
throw questionable code on the pipeline that I have a problem with.
As my friend's son said, "code it up as quickly as possible and throw
it out there and see what happens".

It is not MS's money, power or semi monopoly that I see that most
people have a problem with, its MS's attitude toward the computing
public when it comes to throwing stuff out there and waiting to see
what happens.

If you are going to TRUELY serve the public and if you TRUELY give a
rat's arse about your customer base, then you must supply your
supporting infrastructure/product upgrades to not only NOT be more
harmful than the ailment it is created to cure but also be created
with the level of operation in mind that the majority of systems out
there are being operated at. In this case, and as sad as it is, the
majority of systems out there are operating as the lowest common
denominator. So if you really give a hoot, you must structure your
upgrades/updates to the lowest common denominator, which is the
majority instead of "code it up as quickly as possible and throw it
out there and see what happens".

Keep in mind that those on these news groups and tech info sites are
the computing minority.

Regards,

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The reality you seem to ignore is modern computing is hi tech.
Consumers MUST endeavour to learn more.
Microsoft also has further to go.
But Microsoft has come a long way in the last few years with such basic
changes as a firewall now enabled by default.
Something that has always been easy to do with Windows XP and yet so many
users neglected this basic security that Microsoft was forced to change the
default settings of the firewall.
If automobiles needed the type of default security a computer needs, all
seatbelts would attach automatically and there would be some automatic
system to perform an oil change whether the owner thought of it or not.

As bad as spyware is, ignore that and if every user simply had an adequate
and well maintained firewall and antivirus with Windows Updates, many of the
current problems on the web and personal computers would go away.
While Microsoft is slowly moving forward, it often seems that users are not.

For the most part proactive users can prevent most problems without the help
of Microsoft.
But there is almost nothing Microsoft can do to achieve reasonable security
until more people take the safety and security of their computer more
seriously.

Then there is always the option of getting rid of the computer and going
back to paper and pencil.
Even then pencils have erasers and occasionally need a sharpener.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Shooter" <fhasfdjh@AlkjdaF@com> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:21:11 -0500, "Jone Doe" >
> wrote:
>
>>"_People_don't_want_to_fix_their_computers,_they_wa nt_to_use_them._"
>>
>>What, change the oil and make sure there is air in the tires? I bought
>>this
>>car to drive it, not to work on it.
>
> Hi Jane.... Actually it is hard for people that try to maintain some
> resemblance of computing knowledge by following the related news
> groups and research related tech sites, like those on here, to
> understand that the majority of computer users out there (your basic,
> run of the mill, Mom & Pop computer owner) do not have a clue beyond
> how to turn it on, write the kiddies a letter and then turn it back
> off. They do not change the oil in their car and check the air in
> their tires any more than checking the health of their computer.
>
> I wouldn't be afraid to guess that 90% of the computing public know
> nothing more, nor want to know any more, than the above example of Mom
> & Pop. The only reason that most/some of them are up-to-date on their
> criticals is that their copy of XP is set to do auto upgrade downloads
> and installs only because XP comes defaulted to do it that way.
> Otherwise, they wouldn't even be getting critical updates.
>
> In short, the biggest majority of the computing public is
> computer/computing illiterate. This is not to say they are stupid...
> They just never had the formal evolution associated with growing up
> with a computer that anyone born after 1980 was privileged with.
>
> Now, it is easy for us to say, "they should get a clue" or "they need
> to get off the pot and educate themselves". Myself being from the
> same generation as the majority, I did educate myself, or at least
> educated myself enough to keep out of most trouble associated with
> computers. But that is only because I developed an interest in
> computers beyond your basic turn it on, word process your business and
> turn it off level of understanding. I have a "SEMI" clue I guess.
>
> Anyway, it would seem that Bill Gates assumes that everyone has the
> mental metal that his "so called" system developers have. In other
> words, here is a complicated upgrade that will only work if you have
> your system wired tight like people in the know do. Well, if you are
> one of the 90% of the computing public that are not in the know, then
> you are going to get bit. In the beginning of SP2, Bill Gates made it
> an auto download/install feature of XP update. He did not take into
> account that 90% of the public's computers were not "Wired Tight",
> clean and ready for that level of upgrade. He didn't even incorporate
> code in the upgrade to check for compatibility or "known" problem
> areas and program the upgrade to NOT install if certain parameters
> were not met. I call that corporate level arrogance or.... Here it
> is.... Good Luck!
>
> Now we have another critical that has come out and is wrecking havoc
> with some systems. And this one seems to be biting even systems that
> belong to people that do have a clue. Its getting to be business as
> usual when associating MS with system meltdowns. And MS just keeps
> putting them out there without any regard to the computing public....
> Here it is.... Good Luck!
>
> I have a friend who's son worked for MS a few years back before moving
> on. He says that the mentality of MS was to "code it up as quickly as
> possible and throw it out there and see what happens". Well, with
> what I have seen going on these past few years, I am inclined to
> believe what his son says was and is the on-going philosophy at MS.
>
> Don't get me wrong... I am not a windows hater. I like XP and have
> never had a meltdown associated with an upgrade (Knock On Wood).
> However, its MS's ethics (or lack of) and how they indiscriminately
> throw questionable code on the pipeline that I have a problem with.
> As my friend's son said, "code it up as quickly as possible and throw
> it out there and see what happens".
>
> It is not MS's money, power or semi monopoly that I see that most
> people have a problem with, its MS's attitude toward the computing
> public when it comes to throwing stuff out there and waiting to see
> what happens.
>
> If you are going to TRUELY serve the public and if you TRUELY give a
> rat's arse about your customer base, then you must supply your
> supporting infrastructure/product upgrades to not only NOT be more
> harmful than the ailment it is created to cure but also be created
> with the level of operation in mind that the majority of systems out
> there are being operated at. In this case, and as sad as it is, the
> majority of systems out there are operating as the lowest common
> denominator. So if you really give a hoot, you must structure your
> upgrades/updates to the lowest common denominator, which is the
> majority instead of "code it up as quickly as possible and throw it
> out there and see what happens".
>
> Keep in mind that those on these news groups and tech info sites are
> the computing minority.
>
> Regards,
>

[Shooter]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:34:15 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> wrote:

>The reality you seem to ignore is modern computing is hi tech.
>Consumers MUST endeavour to learn more.

Yes, and in a perfect world they would. However, the reality you
refer to also dictates that the majority of the today's computing
world is still made up of "old school", Mom & Pop types that for
whatever reason, do not have the time, do not wish to take the time,
could care less, its over my head or any other number of reasons do
not wish or want to know any more than how to turn it on, do their
business and turn it off. Until my generation dies off, the majority
of computer users will be that way.

My argument is not that MS should stop progressive developments and
enhancements to its product(s) but that it needs to use a little more
common sense in the administering and distribution of those
developments and enhancements as far as looking at who the majority of
its clientele is at this specific time in computing history.

Remember, when MS first made SP2 available, they made it through the
auto update feature. Even knowing and even presenting multiple pages
on their site to the fact that SP2 will jump up and bite you in the
arse if you don't have all ducks in a row on your system, they still
made it an auto update knowing full well that all those Mom & Pop
systems out there set on auto update/install were NOT going to have
their ducks in a row. A disaster in waiting if you will....

I have nothing against SP2 but I do think MS was derelict for not
taking into account the known fact that at this time in computing
history that the majority of computer users are still Mom & Pop users
with systems set on auto update/install and no matter what you do,
will never have their computing ducks in a row. Now, we see that MS
took SP2 off auto update and made it where you have to physically
commit to its installation instead of having it automatically
installed in the background. The way such a "volatile" upgrade should
have been offered in the first place.

Whether any of us like it or not, the present day majority of the
computing public is the lowest common denominator and nothing but the
passing of that generation (of which I am one) will change that. For
MS to disassociate itself with that fact and do business as if
everyone has their ducks in a row is nothing short of a misplaced
arrogance.

>But Microsoft has come a long way in the last few years with such basic
>changes as a firewall now enabled by default.

Yes but you and I are talking apples and oranges Jupiter. I am
talking about upgrades and updates that can be extremely hazardous if
installed on a system that has certain and/or specific problems that
have not been addressed before the installation. It is my argument
that MS needs to at the least incorporate code in volatile
updates/upgrades to check for those problems before installing itself
and to abort the installation if certain parameters/situations are not
met. Again, saving the Mom and Pop majority out there from their own
computing illiteracy. After that generation is gone, then those
safeguards will not have to be incorporated in all volatile
upgrades/updates but until then.......

Hey Jupiter, do it for your tired old mother (grin).

>For the most part proactive users can prevent most problems without the help
>of Microsoft.

Very true. Too bad the majority of the computing public isn't there
yet.

>But there is almost nothing Microsoft can do to achieve reasonable
>security until more people take the safety and security of their computer more
>seriously.

True again but they can take measures to guard the computer
illiterates from having their systems melt down due to volatile MS
updates/upgrades by incorporating code to do a pre check of the system
before allowing the installation.

>Then there is always the option of getting rid of the computer and going
>back to paper and pencil.

No, just wait for the paper and pencil crowd to pass on.

Just to sum the whole mess up.... we are in a transition era of
computing history. There are two main groups involved. Your basic
pencil and paper crowd trying to look cool and hip with a computer and
your techno generation born with computers. Right now, the majority
is made up of that pencil and paper crowd and whether we or MS likes
it or not, they are the big consumer right now and MS better address
the way it supplies its support for that crowd. Let me say that one
more time.... That paper and pencil crowd is your major consumer right
now, even in their own blind computer illiterate way. When the
majority becomes the present day techno crowd, then MS can offer
support the way it does now... which is assuming you have your ducks
in a row before letting this latest thing install itself.

Regards,

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"Now, we see that MS took SP2 off auto update and made it..."
Completely false.
SP-2 can still be received through Automatic Update.
Nothing has changed with the distribution of SP-2.
Unless you are talking about that tool Microsoft designed to temporarily
delay SP-2.
Did you fall for that articles spreading FUD?
This had no effect on the "Mom & Pop users" you are referring.
The security community is pushing Microsoft hard for auto update for
Critical Updates, other security defaults as well.
For the most part if a Service Pack or update seems to break the computer,
it was already broke.
But instead of ignorantly continuing with their infected computer spreading
Trojans and other malware, in some cases the computer has symptoms and now
the user knows there is a problem and may seek to fix it.

As much as I hate Automatic Update, it is needed and should stay.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Shooter" <fhasfdjh@AlkjdaF@com> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:34:15 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> > wrote:
>
>>The reality you seem to ignore is modern computing is hi tech.
>>Consumers MUST endeavour to learn more.
>
> Yes, and in a perfect world they would. However, the reality you
> refer to also dictates that the majority of the today's computing
> world is still made up of "old school", Mom & Pop types that for
> whatever reason, do not have the time, do not wish to take the time,
> could care less, its over my head or any other number of reasons do
> not wish or want to know any more than how to turn it on, do their
> business and turn it off. Until my generation dies off, the majority
> of computer users will be that way.
>
> My argument is not that MS should stop progressive developments and
> enhancements to its product(s) but that it needs to use a little more
> common sense in the administering and distribution of those
> developments and enhancements as far as looking at who the majority of
> its clientele is at this specific time in computing history.
>
> Remember, when MS first made SP2 available, they made it through the
> auto update feature. Even knowing and even presenting multiple pages
> on their site to the fact that SP2 will jump up and bite you in the
> arse if you don't have all ducks in a row on your system, they still
> made it an auto update knowing full well that all those Mom & Pop
> systems out there set on auto update/install were NOT going to have
> their ducks in a row. A disaster in waiting if you will....
>
> I have nothing against SP2 but I do think MS was derelict for not
> taking into account the known fact that at this time in computing
> history that the majority of computer users are still Mom & Pop users
> with systems set on auto update/install and no matter what you do,
> will never have their computing ducks in a row. Now, we see that MS
> took SP2 off auto update and made it where you have to physically
> commit to its installation instead of having it automatically
> installed in the background. The way such a "volatile" upgrade should
> have been offered in the first place.
>
> Whether any of us like it or not, the present day majority of the
> computing public is the lowest common denominator and nothing but the
> passing of that generation (of which I am one) will change that. For
> MS to disassociate itself with that fact and do business as if
> everyone has their ducks in a row is nothing short of a misplaced
> arrogance.
>
>>But Microsoft has come a long way in the last few years with such basic
>>changes as a firewall now enabled by default.
>
> Yes but you and I are talking apples and oranges Jupiter. I am
> talking about upgrades and updates that can be extremely hazardous if
> installed on a system that has certain and/or specific problems that
> have not been addressed before the installation. It is my argument
> that MS needs to at the least incorporate code in volatile
> updates/upgrades to check for those problems before installing itself
> and to abort the installation if certain parameters/situations are not
> met. Again, saving the Mom and Pop majority out there from their own
> computing illiteracy. After that generation is gone, then those
> safeguards will not have to be incorporated in all volatile
> upgrades/updates but until then.......
>
> Hey Jupiter, do it for your tired old mother (grin).
>
>>For the most part proactive users can prevent most problems without the
>>help
>>of Microsoft.
>
> Very true. Too bad the majority of the computing public isn't there
> yet.
>
>>But there is almost nothing Microsoft can do to achieve reasonable
>>security until more people take the safety and security of their computer
>>more
>>seriously.
>
> True again but they can take measures to guard the computer
> illiterates from having their systems melt down due to volatile MS
> updates/upgrades by incorporating code to do a pre check of the system
> before allowing the installation.
>
>>Then there is always the option of getting rid of the computer and going
>>back to paper and pencil.
>
> No, just wait for the paper and pencil crowd to pass on.
>
> Just to sum the whole mess up.... we are in a transition era of
> computing history. There are two main groups involved. Your basic
> pencil and paper crowd trying to look cool and hip with a computer and
> your techno generation born with computers. Right now, the majority
> is made up of that pencil and paper crowd and whether we or MS likes
> it or not, they are the big consumer right now and MS better address
> the way it supplies its support for that crowd. Let me say that one
> more time.... That paper and pencil crowd is your major consumer right
> now, even in their own blind computer illiterate way. When the
> majority becomes the present day techno crowd, then MS can offer
> support the way it does now... which is assuming you have your ducks
> in a row before letting this latest thing install itself.
>
> Regards,

[health_wellness@solution4u.com]

Just laughing here about the fact that you are getting the infamous MVP
dodge when it comes to your real point.

Why doesn't M$ have the common decency to add code to their updates
that will check a system before installing itself to make sure all
known problems this update might have with a system are taken care of?

Answer, show me where M$ has ever given a crap in the past about such
things and there is your answer and the reason you are getting the MVP
dodge. M$'s own track record shows that they don't give a crap, never
ever gave a crap and don't intend on starting any time soon at giving a
crap. What was it your friend's son that worked for them said?
Something like Code it as quickly as possible and throw it out there
and see what happens.

FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife abuse
with Henry the 8th.

You made one single mistake about M$ taking SP2 off the auto update
market and that is what the MVP capitalized on instead of what your
articulate message was really all about. The MVP dodge we call it.
You make too much common sense to be wasting your time trying to have a
proper conversation with M$'s clone squad. They are hard wired to be
nothing less than 100% Praise the Gods for M$ and everything it stands
for and everything it does. Let us all bend down and kiss M$'s rosy
red butt hole types.

Later Dude,
NIK

***Email address is a spam trap***


Shooter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:34:15 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> > wrote:
>
> >The reality you seem to ignore is modern computing is hi tech.
> >Consumers MUST endeavour to learn more.
>
> Yes, and in a perfect world they would. However, the reality you
> refer to also dictates that the majority of the today's computing
> world is still made up of "old school", Mom & Pop types that for
> whatever reason, do not have the time, do not wish to take the time,
> could care less, its over my head or any other number of reasons do
> not wish or want to know any more than how to turn it on, do their
> business and turn it off. Until my generation dies off, the majority
> of computer users will be that way.
>
> My argument is not that MS should stop progressive developments and
> enhancements to its product(s) but that it needs to use a little more
> common sense in the administering and distribution of those
> developments and enhancements as far as looking at who the majority
of
> its clientele is at this specific time in computing history.
>
> Remember, when MS first made SP2 available, they made it through the
> auto update feature. Even knowing and even presenting multiple pages
> on their site to the fact that SP2 will jump up and bite you in the
> arse if you don't have all ducks in a row on your system, they still
> made it an auto update knowing full well that all those Mom & Pop
> systems out there set on auto update/install were NOT going to have
> their ducks in a row. A disaster in waiting if you will....
>
> I have nothing against SP2 but I do think MS was derelict for not
> taking into account the known fact that at this time in computing
> history that the majority of computer users are still Mom & Pop users
> with systems set on auto update/install and no matter what you do,
> will never have their computing ducks in a row. Now, we see that MS
> took SP2 off auto update and made it where you have to physically
> commit to its installation instead of having it automatically
> installed in the background. The way such a "volatile" upgrade
should
> have been offered in the first place.
>
> Whether any of us like it or not, the present day majority of the
> computing public is the lowest common denominator and nothing but the
> passing of that generation (of which I am one) will change that. For
> MS to disassociate itself with that fact and do business as if
> everyone has their ducks in a row is nothing short of a misplaced
> arrogance.
>
> >But Microsoft has come a long way in the last few years with such
basic
> >changes as a firewall now enabled by default.
>
> Yes but you and I are talking apples and oranges Jupiter. I am
> talking about upgrades and updates that can be extremely hazardous if
> installed on a system that has certain and/or specific problems that
> have not been addressed before the installation. It is my argument
> that MS needs to at the least incorporate code in volatile
> updates/upgrades to check for those problems before installing itself
> and to abort the installation if certain parameters/situations are
not
> met. Again, saving the Mom and Pop majority out there from their own
> computing illiteracy. After that generation is gone, then those
> safeguards will not have to be incorporated in all volatile
> upgrades/updates but until then.......
>
> Hey Jupiter, do it for your tired old mother (grin).
>
> >For the most part proactive users can prevent most problems without
the help
> >of Microsoft.
>
> Very true. Too bad the majority of the computing public isn't there
> yet.
>
> >But there is almost nothing Microsoft can do to achieve reasonable
> >security until more people take the safety and security of their
computer more
> >seriously.
>
> True again but they can take measures to guard the computer
> illiterates from having their systems melt down due to volatile MS
> updates/upgrades by incorporating code to do a pre check of the
system
> before allowing the installation.
>
> >Then there is always the option of getting rid of the computer and
going
> >back to paper and pencil.
>
> No, just wait for the paper and pencil crowd to pass on.
>
> Just to sum the whole mess up.... we are in a transition era of
> computing history. There are two main groups involved. Your basic
> pencil and paper crowd trying to look cool and hip with a computer
and
> your techno generation born with computers. Right now, the majority
> is made up of that pencil and paper crowd and whether we or MS likes
> it or not, they are the big consumer right now and MS better address
> the way it supplies its support for that crowd. Let me say that one
> more time.... That paper and pencil crowd is your major consumer
right
> now, even in their own blind computer illiterate way. When the
> majority becomes the present day techno crowd, then MS can offer
> support the way it does now... which is assuming you have your ducks
> in a row before letting this latest thing install itself.
>
> Regards,

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Clearly you have no clue.
Can you provide anything of value?
Or are you only capable of insults?
Your posting history suggests the second.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just laughing here about the fact that you are getting the infamous MVP
> dodge when it comes to your real point.
>
> Why doesn't M$ have the common decency to add code to their updates
> that will check a system before installing itself to make sure all
> known problems this update might have with a system are taken care of?
>
> Answer, show me where M$ has ever given a crap in the past about such
> things and there is your answer and the reason you are getting the MVP
> dodge. M$'s own track record shows that they don't give a crap, never
> ever gave a crap and don't intend on starting any time soon at giving a
> crap. What was it your friend's son that worked for them said?
> Something like Code it as quickly as possible and throw it out there
> and see what happens.
>
> FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
> doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife abuse
> with Henry the 8th.
>
> You made one single mistake about M$ taking SP2 off the auto update
> market and that is what the MVP capitalized on instead of what your
> articulate message was really all about. The MVP dodge we call it.
> You make too much common sense to be wasting your time trying to have a
> proper conversation with M$'s clone squad. They are hard wired to be
> nothing less than 100% Praise the Gods for M$ and everything it stands
> for and everything it does. Let us all bend down and kiss M$'s rosy
> red butt hole types.
>
> Later Dude,
> NIK
>
> ***Email address is a spam trap***

[Alias]

"Leythos" > wrote
> and this applies to ALL OS'S [sic].
>
> --

Don't mean to be picky but plurals NEVER use an apostrophe.

Alias

[Alias]

"Leythos" > wrote
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:16:24 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>>
>> "Leythos" > wrote
>>> and this applies to ALL OS'S [sic].
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Don't mean to be picky but plurals NEVER use an apostrophe.
>
> Yea, but who's going to understand OSS :)
>

OSs. Or, you could spell it out: operating systems.

Alias

[Alias]

"Leythos" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:25:06 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>> "Leythos" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:16:24 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Leythos" > wrote
>>>>> and this applies to ALL OS'S [sic].
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Don't mean to be picky but plurals NEVER use an apostrophe.
>>>
>>> Yea, but who's going to understand OSS :)
>>>
>> OSs. Or, you could spell it out: operating systems.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Wasn't the OSS one of those bad groups to belong to in the 40s?
>
> --

The Office of Strategic Services was the precursor to the CIA.

Now, it's
http://www.oss.net/extra/tools/parser/index.cgi?url=/html/parse/index.html
or Open Source Solutions.

Go figure ...

Alias

[Treeman]

[QUOTE=Snip[/QUOTE]
Just a quick look through the boards at www.pcbanter.net will touch on current problems; (MS newsgroups)
My H. drive disappeared
I can't see my network.
My cd/dvd drives disappeared.
I can't access my USB devices.
Firewire devices not seen.
I can't access the internet; broadband & dial-up.
No DV camera capture; or camera not recognized.
Printing problems, scanner problems.

My question is why did all this hardware work with SP1, but not SP2?

Was it the spyware that worked with SP1, but won't work with SP2?

Was it the crappy native SP1 drivers for hardware that worked, that SP2 fixed?

How much information will the "average user," need to fix hardware that wasn't broken before SP2?

Why were certain April 12th. updates allowed to break systems again?

It seems like the common thread is, if it ain't broke yet just wait; we're working on it!
Jeez,
Treeman

[Shooter]

On 20 Apr 2005 20:57:30 -0700, wrote:

>FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
>doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife abuse
>with Henry the 8th.

I haven't been here long and don't know the rules yet. However, I
will watch my step around here from now on. I thought I was giving a
constructive point of view in a courteous way but...... I guess what
you are saying is if I play in their backyard then don't say anything
negative about the Boss. Consider me as educated and put in my place.

>You made one single mistake about M$ taking SP2 off the auto update
>market and that is what the MVP capitalized on instead of what your
>articulate message was really all about.

Well, I noticed that but opted to let it go. My daughter used the
same tactics when she was a child so its not a new tactic to me. I
started seeing where the whole thing was headed after that and it
didn't appear that it was going to be allowed to continue as a
courteous exchange of opposing views concerning the main content of
the message which was never addressed. I also see that I misspelled a
word so I guess that really puts me on the outs.

Like I said... I see how it works around here now and will keep my
mouth shut and stay in my place.

Have a good day....

[Don Taylor From:]

Leythos > writes:
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:14:27 -0400, Shooter wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2005 20:57:30 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>>FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
>>>doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife abuse
>>>with Henry the 8th.
>>
>> I haven't been here long and don't know the rules yet. However, I will
>> watch my step around here from now on. I thought I was giving a
>> constructive point of view in a courteous way but...... I guess what
>> you are saying is if I play in their backyard then don't say anything
>> negative about the Boss. Consider me as educated and put in my place.

>I think, with only a few exceptions, that if you post a valid complaint
>about a MS method or action that there are no negative responses to it, in
>fact, many of the MVP's may agree with it - provided that it was valid.

>In your case, to suggest that MS should do something that none of the
>other OS vendors are doing, to criticize them for the failings of the OS
>user (or the ignorance of the user), is not a valid complaint.

Perhaps because none of the other vendors NEEDED to address some of his
points.

Example: Microsoft dealing with a billion dollar SP2 security fix to
deal with "vast numbers of compromised machines" as has been claimed
here by the MS MVP, preparing itself to be installed on... oh, I
don't know... compromised machines.

So, why wouldn't say Apple need to do the same? Well, according to the
media the word was that there was ONE Mac OS virus found in 2004 and ZERO
for the couple of years prior to that. I believe that was what the count
was that was published by several national sources a few months ago. Got
a count of the number of viruses that swept the MS world last year?

That seems valid to me. But I expect you will shriek your refusal,
based on previous postings.

Or, to put this a different way, I guess if you dig yourself a hole,
you accept the consequences of what you chose to do.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"didn't appear that it was going to be allowed to continue as a courteous
exchange"
If that is what you saw, perhaps what you saw was yourself.

"and will keep my mouth shut and stay in my place."
Really? Where is "my place"?

Also note who started and finished the insults in this


As for the rest, if you read the thread again, you may find the answers to
what you asked already posted.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"Shooter" <fhasfdjh@AlkjdaF@com> wrote in message
...
> On 20 Apr 2005 20:57:30 -0700, wrote:
>
>>FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
>>doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife abuse
>>with Henry the 8th.
>
> I haven't been here long and don't know the rules yet. However, I
> will watch my step around here from now on. I thought I was giving a
> constructive point of view in a courteous way but...... I guess what
> you are saying is if I play in their backyard then don't say anything
> negative about the Boss. Consider me as educated and put in my place.
>
>>You made one single mistake about M$ taking SP2 off the auto update
>>market and that is what the MVP capitalized on instead of what your
>>articulate message was really all about.
>
> Well, I noticed that but opted to let it go. My daughter used the
> same tactics when she was a child so its not a new tactic to me. I
> started seeing where the whole thing was headed after that and it
> didn't appear that it was going to be allowed to continue as a
> courteous exchange of opposing views concerning the main content of
> the message which was never addressed. I also see that I misspelled a
> word so I guess that really puts me on the outs.
>
> Like I said... I see how it works around here now and will keep my
> mouth shut and stay in my place.
>
> Have a good day....

[health_wellness@solution4u.com]

You know, what we had here was a "new guy" that from everything I
read in the thread was trying to engage you in a courteous exchange
about something that bothered him about M$. Not once did he ever
attack you, flame you or say anything bad about you or directed toward
you. Being the new guy, he hadn't become familiar with your typical
way of spewing venom at anyone that doesn't bend down and lick on
MS's rear end all day long like you clones are bred to do. You
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the little prick you really are.

However, there is a positive side to all this and that is that you and
your usual puffed up venomous attitude toward others confirmed without
a doubt what the new guy was suggesting about a contemptuous attitude
that M$ and all its clones have toward the public. You fell into that
one like a glove without even knowing you did.

No matter how hard you try, you just can't be decent even to the new
people coming here trying to engaging in courteous adult level
communications. Your venom and disrespect of others is hard wired by
M$ and a questionable upbringing I suppose. You are a perfect
representative for what I think M$ really is. You are the culmination
of all that is sad and bad about M$.

***To the new guy,***
Don't let this puffed up peacock's usual venomous attitude chase
you off the group. From your posts, you appear to be an articulate,
nice, courteous person of which this group needs more. Believe it or
not, there actually are some decent people on here that can help when
needed and I'm sure you have things that can help others. Just
don't waste your time trying to have positive communications with
known jackasses like this Jupiter joke. And since the Cloned Jackass
forgot to mention while spewing out its usual venom.... Welcome to the
group and we appreciate you courtesy.

NIK





Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> "didn't appear that it was going to be allowed to continue as a
courteous
> exchange"
> If that is what you saw, perhaps what you saw was yourself.
>
> "and will keep my mouth shut and stay in my place."
> Really? Where is "my place"?
>
> Also note who started and finished the insults in this
>
>
> As for the rest, if you read the thread again, you may find the
answers to
> what you asked already posted.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Shooter" <fhasfdjh@AlkjdaF@com> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 20 Apr 2005 20:57:30 -0700,
wrote:
> >
> >>FYI, don't try to discuss common sense about M$'s ethics and way of
> >>doing business with an MVP. That's like trying to discuss wife
abuse
> >>with Henry the 8th.
> >
> > I haven't been here long and don't know the rules yet. However, I
> > will watch my step around here from now on. I thought I was giving
a
> > constructive point of view in a courteous way but...... I guess
what
> > you are saying is if I play in their backyard then don't say
anything
> > negative about the Boss. Consider me as educated and put in my
place.
> >
> >>You made one single mistake about M$ taking SP2 off the auto update
> >>market and that is what the MVP capitalized on instead of what your
> >>articulate message was really all about.
> >
> > Well, I noticed that but opted to let it go. My daughter used the
> > same tactics when she was a child so its not a new tactic to me. I
> > started seeing where the whole thing was headed after that and it
> > didn't appear that it was going to be allowed to continue as a
> > courteous exchange of opposing views concerning the main content of
> > the message which was never addressed. I also see that I
misspelled a
> > word so I guess that really puts me on the outs.
> >
> > Like I said... I see how it works around here now and will keep my
> > mouth shut and stay in my place.
> >
> > Have a good day....

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

You continue to prove what I said in my last post.
The need you seem to have to insult is a good indicator you are incapable of
supporting your views.
If you were capable you would not need to shore up you point with insults.
True to your history, you continue to post nothing of value.
Insults is all you have contributed so far.
Post back only if you feel the need to have the last word.
Good bye

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You know, what we had here was a "new guy" that from everything I
> read in the thread was trying to engage you in a courteous exchange
> about something that bothered him about M$. Not once did he ever
> attack you, flame you or say anything bad about you or directed toward
> you. Being the new guy, he hadn't become familiar with your typical
> way of spewing venom at anyone that doesn't bend down and lick on
> MS's rear end all day long like you clones are bred to do. You
> proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the little prick you really are.
>
> However, there is a positive side to all this and that is that you and
> your usual puffed up venomous attitude toward others confirmed without
> a doubt what the new guy was suggesting about a contemptuous attitude
> that M$ and all its clones have toward the public. You fell into that
> one like a glove without even knowing you did.
>
> No matter how hard you try, you just can't be decent even to the new
> people coming here trying to engaging in courteous adult level
> communications. Your venom and disrespect of others is hard wired by
> M$ and a questionable upbringing I suppose. You are a perfect
> representative for what I think M$ really is. You are the culmination
> of all that is sad and bad about M$.
>
> ***To the new guy,***
> Don't let this puffed up peacock's usual venomous attitude chase
> you off the group. From your posts, you appear to be an articulate,
> nice, courteous person of which this group needs more. Believe it or
> not, there actually are some decent people on here that can help when
> needed and I'm sure you have things that can help others. Just
> don't waste your time trying to have positive communications with
> known jackasses like this Jupiter joke. And since the Cloned Jackass
> forgot to mention while spewing out its usual venom.... Welcome to the
> group and we appreciate you courtesy.
>
> NIK

[Shooter]

On 21 Apr 2005 17:44:40 -0700, wrote:

>Welcome to the
>group and we appreciate you courtesy.

Well thank you for that. I was just brought up to always interact in
a courteous way, even in the face of unpleasant individuals. The best
way to handle them is to ignore them and direct your energy and
interactions toward more courteous, pleasant people. I know it feels
good to throw their "Venom" back at them but that only brings you down
to their level and most of the time, they don't even understand that
what they are getting is a mirror reflection of what they are giving
out. They usually conveniently blind themselves to that fact.

So, thank you for the courtesy of your kind words and educating me to
who and what to watch out for around here. As evident, the whos make
themselves readily apparent.

Have a good day.....