SP2 drove me to open source

Jason Bowen wrote:

update. It is a laptop and the manufacturer, Compaq, didn't have any
"motherboard" drivers, just drivers for sound, video, modem etc. The
frustrated with Microsoft. I am an operating system hobbyist, like to

Then use a standard, non proprietary pc to play with.







--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Plato wrote:
Jason Bowen wrote:

update. It is a laptop and the manufacturer, Compaq, didn't have any
"motherboard" drivers, just drivers for sound, video, modem etc. The
frustrated with Microsoft. I am an operating system hobbyist, like to


Then use a standard, non proprietary pc to play with.



All the hardware does conform to standards such as VESA and IDE. That
is why an operating system like OpenBSD installed.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:23:58 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

Yes, they were tested at some point.
As to whether they are compatible with SP-2 is difficult to say.

This highlights something rather significant about SP2, and some
background reasons why this may be a taste of things to come.

Windows meshes several subsystems into one lump - i.e. while separate
dev teams dev the subsystems, they cannot be uninstalled and managed
separately by the end user. Thinking DirectX, WSH, IE, OE, WMP etc.

Current MS support policy draws lines between "still supported" vs.
"no longer supported" based on SP levels.

So there's a temptation to push the latest subsystems into each SP,
the sooner to set a new support baseline. For example, if you were
the DirectX team, you'd rather see SP2 push DirectX 9c rather than
leave (say) DirectX 8 in place, because a certain time down the line,
you could drop support for DirectX 8.xx through DirectX 9b once SP2
becomes the lowest SP level supported.

This breaks the principle of "do not add features to Service Packs".
Effectively, SP2 *is* a new OS subversion, just as much as Win98SE was
over Win98. But whereas Win98SE was marketed as a new subversion (you
had to buy it as an upgrade from Win98) SP2 is not.

That's good news, but the downside is that folks will apply SP2 on the
assumption it will fix a few security issues, and that's it. They'll
read up the caveats about how these security changes will affect
software that will fall foul of these, but they won't expect deep
driver-level incompatibilities e.g. Prescott vs. SP2, etc.

In fact, many of us who advocate installing SP2 (in the interests of
better malware safety) also advocate against installing a newer OS
over an older one to upgrade it - we know how wrong that can go.


It was several months before SP2 was released as an OS (e.g. the new
DSP and OEM CDs that are natively SP2). Without that, users have
other problems if they apply SP2...
- cannot use Recovery Console
- cannot do repair install
....because SP2 breaks compatibility with their license-legit (but now
comparitively useless) installation CD.

IMO, if an SP does this, then it is obliged to:
- include functionality to generate replacement installation CD
- document this issue in "before you install..."
- offer that during the installation process
- have this available after the installation process

MS should demonstrate good faith by releasing this functionality as a
free downloadable adjunct to SP2. As it is, their lecensing terms
disallow the creation of a "slipstreamed" installation disk, as is
possible via 3rd-party tools and advice. In essence, SP2 knocks you
down and MS's rules disallow you from getting up again. That SUCKS.



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

In message "cquirke (MVP
Windows shell/user)" wrote:

MS should demonstrate good faith by releasing this functionality as a
free downloadable adjunct to SP2. As it is, their lecensing terms
disallow the creation of a "slipstreamed" installation disk, as is
possible via 3rd-party tools and advice. In essence, SP2 knocks you
down and MS's rules disallow you from getting up again. That SUCKS.

I didn't read the license too closely, but I didn't see anything there
that forbids end-user creation of a slipstreamed disk.

Did I miss something?


--
1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans
a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill
of watching paint dry.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:32:47 -0700, DevilsPGD
In message "cquirke (MVP
Windows shell/user)" wrote:

MS should demonstrate good faith by releasing this functionality as a
free downloadable adjunct to SP2. As it is, their lecensing terms
disallow the creation of a "slipstreamed" installation disk, as is
possible via 3rd-party tools and advice. In essence, SP2 knocks you
down and MS's rules disallow you from getting up again. That SUCKS.

I didn't read the license too closely, but I didn't see anything there
that forbids end-user creation of a slipstreamed disk.

Did I miss something?

Probably. I had a client who needed something like this, as they had
a laptop with one of those lame "recovery" disks, and I wanted to do a
custom OS install plus ensure they could RC and do repair installs
whould the need arise. Although it was a new PC, the OS was pre-SP2,
so I figured doing a slipstream build would hit all the spots.

That's when I was told that technically, slipstream builds broke the
terms of the licensing.

Now one can shrug and ignore such issues, or confront them. Most of
us will do what we have to do, and that constrains us in how tall we
dare stand when something else needs to be confronted. My take is
that licensing terms that force you to be a warez bunny to get the job
done, even when you have paid for the software, suck++

In the end, we found a less sucky laptop brand with a "real" CD :-)



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

In message "cquirke (MVP
Windows shell/user)" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:32:47 -0700, DevilsPGD
In message "cquirke (MVP
Windows shell/user)" wrote:

MS should demonstrate good faith by releasing this functionality as a
free downloadable adjunct to SP2. As it is, their lecensing terms
disallow the creation of a "slipstreamed" installation disk, as is
possible via 3rd-party tools and advice. In essence, SP2 knocks you
down and MS's rules disallow you from getting up again. That SUCKS.

I didn't read the license too closely, but I didn't see anything there
that forbids end-user creation of a slipstreamed disk.

Did I miss something?

Probably. I had a client who needed something like this, as they had
a laptop with one of those lame "recovery" disks, and I wanted to do a
custom OS install plus ensure they could RC and do repair installs
whould the need arise. Although it was a new PC, the OS was pre-SP2,
so I figured doing a slipstream build would hit all the spots.

That's when I was told that technically, slipstream builds broke the
terms of the licensing.

Now one can shrug and ignore such issues, or confront them. Most of
us will do what we have to do, and that constrains us in how tall we
dare stand when something else needs to be confronted. My take is
that licensing terms that force you to be a warez bunny to get the job
done, even when you have paid for the software, suck++

In the end, we found a less sucky laptop brand with a "real" CD :-)

I'm not seeing anything in the WinXP (full or OEM) licenses which forbid
slipstreaming -- If your OEM places additional restrictions on you,
that's a problem between you and your OEM.


--
If stupidity persists, consult your psychiatrist.