If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
afraid to download it. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking
advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. Others simply need updates or adjustments. Still others are abandoned by their manufacturers. Check the manufacturer for hardware and software compatibility with SP-2. Preparation helps for a problem free installation as well. The number of problems is few once preparations have been made. http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? I installed SP2 on three PC's all three have very different specs (although they are all less than 2 years old and very well maintained) I had no serious issues at all, all my software and hardware continued to work, with the exception of a bluetooth adapter which I expected would have conflicts with the new native bluetooth drivers in SP2 but that was fairly easily resolved. SP2 is not mandatory and if you have a hardware firewall or don't connect your PC to the internet at all then it is not necessary but it can be uninstalled, so give it a try. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? I installed SP2 on three PC's all three have very different specs (although they are all less than 2 years old and very well maintained) I had no serious issues at all, all my software and hardware continued to work, with the exception of a bluetooth adapter which I expected would have conflicts with the new native bluetooth drivers in SP2 but that was fairly easily resolved. SP2 is not mandatory and if you have a hardware firewall or don't connect your PC to the internet at all then it is not necessary but it can be uninstalled, so give it a try. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
See my in-line comments.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora" wrote: -----Original Message----- wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_ denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to prove that. Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact, of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied - if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and, when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new one. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so. Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange. Peter R. Fletcher |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
See my in-line comments.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora" wrote: -----Original Message----- wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_ denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to prove that. Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact, of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied - if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and, when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new one. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so. Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange. Peter R. Fletcher |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- See my in-line comments. On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora" wrote: -----Original Message----- wrote in message .. . I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_ denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to prove that. Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact, of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied - if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and, when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new one. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so. Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange. Peter R. Fletcher I think maybe you have your head up your a$$, or you're so high up in your ivory tower that you've completely lost touch with reality. I know that the Recycle Bin doesn't have to be emptied, and its size will take care of itself. The Recycle Bin story was being used in the original as an example of how clueless one particular user is (I should have made that clear). A while back I did an informal and thoroughly unscientific survey of ten or twelve people I know who use XP on a daily basis, and *none* of them were aware that there were MS-sponsored newsgroups. A few of them weren't even aware of the existence of Usenet. At work, I talked to a dozen or so colleagues--all of them engineers, and all of them using XP at work, and most at home and *none* of them were aware of the existence of these groups. It stands to reason (which is why you don't get it, I guess) that the most ignorant users will have the most problems with SP2, and the most ignorant users are also the least likely ones to know about these groups. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- See my in-line comments. On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:48 -0700, "Wislu Plethora" wrote: -----Original Message----- wrote in message .. . I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_ denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to prove that. Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact, of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied - if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and, when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new one. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so. Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange. Peter R. Fletcher I think maybe you have your head up your a$$, or you're so high up in your ivory tower that you've completely lost touch with reality. I know that the Recycle Bin doesn't have to be emptied, and its size will take care of itself. The Recycle Bin story was being used in the original as an example of how clueless one particular user is (I should have made that clear). A while back I did an informal and thoroughly unscientific survey of ten or twelve people I know who use XP on a daily basis, and *none* of them were aware that there were MS-sponsored newsgroups. A few of them weren't even aware of the existence of Usenet. At work, I talked to a dozen or so colleagues--all of them engineers, and all of them using XP at work, and most at home and *none* of them were aware of the existence of these groups. It stands to reason (which is why you don't get it, I guess) that the most ignorant users will have the most problems with SP2, and the most ignorant users are also the least likely ones to know about these groups. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? Nope. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.
"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- wrote in message ... I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am afraid to download it. They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2. So many people have problems with some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there so many problems? There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no problems. It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put something out that was going to cause everyone to have to change alot on their computers. Whats the deal? Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here. Are you saying that we can't project by looking at complaints how many complaints there might be in the general population? Are you saying that all people *with* problems come here? It's more likely that most users with problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks. What an idiotic statement. It's like telling a person who's on fire that the vast majority of people don't burn to death. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
XP SP2
-----Original Message----- "Wislu Plethora" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2. snip Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into English so we can understand it? Can you give an example of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you mean programs that were written for the platform as it was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly written" program? Nope. You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third- party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of] the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2. So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember- almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the development community to the extent that programmers were able to take advantage of them in writing their programs. But if they were common knowledge among developers, why didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before* they caused problems? The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written" programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed, could have done the patching *before* the holes were exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea wtf he's talking about. You decide. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is SP2 doing - apart from trashing everybody's PC?? | Hugh | Windows Service Pack 2 | 41 | September 25th 04 06:45 PM |
SP2 and IE 6 Error message on first page | PA Bear | General XP issues or comments | 0 | September 23rd 04 07:47 AM |
some clues to SP2 Behavior | Gene Murphy | General XP issues or comments | 0 | September 21st 04 12:19 AM |
Has SP2 been issued by MS yet? | tom-islander | Windows Service Pack 2 | 4 | September 6th 04 12:07 AM |
SP2 install delay and other mysteries | Papa | Windows Service Pack 2 | 4 | August 30th 04 05:55 PM |