A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » The Basics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

XP SP3 Details?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 15th 07, 01:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Also, ask yourself "why is the situation deteriorating". The
advancement of PC's has been absolutely phenomenal. Look what
they do today compared to two years ago. Advancement????


This time I have the quotes straight. What I meant was that each
successive release of Windows in the exact sequence you mention has
been virtually an order of magnitude more complexity and lines of
code, no matter of what type. So, again, I am hardly bashing MS or
anyone, simply observing that /I/ feel that the situation is
"deteriotating" in that Vista cannot help but be a problematical
O/S until at least SP1, until at least all the HW manufacturers
fully come on board with drivers, and all the major SW developers
do the same. That's not being negative, it is being practical. As
I'm sure you're aware, my watchword is that I will NOT beta test
anyone's new anything with my Visa card. If others want to, that's
fine by me. OK, friends?

--
HP, aka Jerry
Ads
  #32  
Old August 15th 07, 03:11 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default XP SP3 Details?

It would depend on the "few" bugs wouldn't it? like a report that
doesn't get printed because garbage was coming out of the printer
for that person on the lan printer? especially the report was for
the supervisor.....

ms support say reload the driver which was already done; ms support
say that there is a virus; user say text only files can get printed
just word docs produce garbage. ms suport say call you back later
& is never here from again.

A few bugs? I do hope windows isn't ever used on planes or control
equipment in hospitals. The os isn't ready to do the things that
ms claims if bugs & unreliability are acceptable.

I now shudder that I heard in the news that it is intended to
have windows running some stuff in cars.......the "accidents"
happened, be reasonable, there are million lines of code in
windows, whats a few bugs...


On 2007-08-14, Unknown wrote:
If indeed you were a programmer particularly a micro-programmer then you
should have enough experience to recognize the complexity of an operating
system plus all the micro-code that operates the hardware. If you were in
development you would know that regardless of the amount of testing some
bugs will show up after release. How can you possibly be so critical of a
few bugs? Compare today's PC's with those of just a few years ago. Be
objective not emotional.
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

Wed at the hips----------???? Supposing you wrote the OS. How
would you control it and/or keep your customers happy. Many
companies write programs to run with XP (the OS) and when a
problem occurs, MS is immediately blamed. Be objective.


Let's just say that I've been around MS more than long enough,
all the way back to the original PC that didn't even have DOS,
that came in with the XT, to understand them pretty well. I don't
mean to be vindictively critical, but surely you will admit they
have less than a stellar record of their own releases, they have
a rep for hiding key parts of their various APIs even from those
who buy their development packages all the way back to the SDK,
reverse engineering of several versions of the major components
of MS Office have been found to contain fairly large percentages
of commands and API calls that seem not to be documented, and MS
like all commercial companies reserves the rights to control its
copyrighted software and give "guidance" to developers.

I didn't say, BTW, that all problems are MS, I am not at all that
naive and not at all an anti-MS bigot to believe that. Rogue and
misbehaving applications, especially systems utilities of all
kinds, are rampant throughout the 25 years since the first PC,
they suffer from their own bugs, side-effects bugs, and the rush
to bring new versions to market no matter what. This super
competitiveness all the way around makes for not only strange
bedfellows but interlocking dependencies that can make full
diagnosis of major or even minor systems issue deceptively
difficult.

I hung up my programmer clothes circa 1995 or so, thus I am more
than a little out-of-date for direct knowledge of whence I speak,
but in monitoring this and many other NGs, I see no real signs of
improvement, if anything, I think the situation is deteriorating.
I'm sorry if you feel I am not being objective, let's just say
that I am a pragmatist and always suspicious of extravagent
claims from ANY developer on either side of problems. Thanks for
listening.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Look closely at all the postings in this group. You'll be
amazed that most problems are not caused by MS but by Non MS
programs, reg cleaners, and virus detect/scan protection?
programs.

That may well be true, but the major developers are wed at
the hips body and soul to the God of Microsoft because they
must play ball or risk losing their certification. But, it is
certainly true that reg cleaners in the hands of the novices
will wreck an otherwise good system and are more harm than
good most of the time.

--
HP, aka Jerry






--
HP, aka Jerry



  #33  
Old August 15th 07, 02:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Tom Willett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 791
Default XP SP3 Details?

I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site showing different
tentative release periods.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| wrote:
|
|
| "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| ...
| | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008.
| | This date is preliminary."
| |
| | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx
|
| BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date for SP3.
|
|
| No, they have made *no* changes because they have announced no dates.
| Words like "preliminary" and "currently plan" indicate that these are
| rough estimates, not promises.
|
| If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or change it,
| that's a failure to keep their promises. Changing an estimate is not.
|
|
| And, they
| always say it's preliminary ;-)
|
|
| Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like that when the
| date is far enough in the future that they are unsure of it. When they
| are closer to a release date and feel assured of making it, *then*
| they will announce a date.
|
|
| --
| Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| Please Reply to the Newsgroup


  #34  
Old August 15th 07, 02:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default XP SP3 Details?

HEMI-Powered wrote:
I agree with you about not getting enthralled with the next MS
compendium of fixes. First, MS's long track record of really bad
releases of not only individual patches but SPs has taught me to
be VERY wary of being the first kid on the block to install the
latest and greatest. e.g., I waited over a year after SP2 to be
sure that the early adopters were happy. While I obviously do not
think SP3 will be that big a deal as you say, there is still a
STRONG likelihood of a major blow-down upon install, especially
if it includes IE7. I say that because I have declined to install
maybe 10-15% of today's SP2 critical updates after lurking for
awhile in these many MS NGs and seeing that those with auto
update turned on had grievous problems. And, I have a strong
philosophy of not trying to fix things that aren't broken, so if
I think I've gotten the updates I need/want - and I do think that
- then in all likelihood I will simply acquire SP3 but not
install it on my present PC.


My PC is about 3 years old now with autoupdate on and have never had any
problems due to autoupdate.
  #35  
Old August 15th 07, 02:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

ben added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

HEMI-Powered wrote:
I agree with you about not getting enthralled with the next
MS compendium of fixes. First, MS's long track record of
really bad releases of not only individual patches but SPs
has taught me to be VERY wary of being the first kid on the
block to install the latest and greatest. e.g., I waited over
a year after SP2 to be sure that the early adopters were
happy. While I obviously do not think SP3 will be that big a
deal as you say, there is still a STRONG likelihood of a
major blow-down upon install, especially if it includes IE7.
I say that because I have declined to install maybe 10-15% of
today's SP2 critical updates after lurking for awhile in
these many MS NGs and seeing that those with auto update
turned on had grievous problems. And, I have a strong
philosophy of not trying to fix things that aren't broken, so
if I think I've gotten the updates I need/want - and I do
think that - then in all likelihood I will simply acquire SP3
but not install it on my present PC.


My PC is about 3 years old now with autoupdate on and have
never had any problems due to autoupdate.

Ben, I do not dispute the personal testimony of people, but MY
experience personally, whilst managing PC support people for 15
years, knowing many technies AND listening to extreme tails of
woe from people who literally went to bed with a fully functional
PC and woke up to toast. So, please do what you think best and
allow others, like myself, who take a more cautious approach. I
do NOT let ANY SW or ANY device, including such simple things as
my cell phone from auto-updating ANYthing. You know my two
mottons on this: "don't try to fix things that aren't broken" and
"never give Murphy an even break.

I'll leave you with one super example of this. Countless people
on these several support NGs as well as graphics app NGs such as
Corel moan, groan and complain about blindly downloading the
latest nVidia card drivers and completely destroying their
systems, sometimes to the point of needing a nuke and reinstall
of the whole shebang. nVidia, in this extreme example, is
INfamous for releasing bugging, very unreliable driver updates,
which is why I stopped buying their video cards 2 PCs ago and
went with ATI.

Good luck, I think you're going to need it - eventually.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #36  
Old August 15th 07, 02:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site showing
different tentative release periods.


Tom, please keep this in mind. First, there is NO reason on God's
Green Earth to be lusting after SP3, no matter WHAT it has in it.
Quite the contrary, you should be wary and cautious to the point
of being frightened of the prospect if you intend to be an early
adopter. I am NOT saying that MS EVER intentionally screws up,
but they DO occasionally mess up a critical update or some other
update. Hopefully, by the time an SP is put together, they've
ascertained whatever the problem is and fixed it, or they may
have simply ignored it if the number of bad reports is small.

As to multiple dates on the web site, so what?! I'm not whacking
on you, Tom, or anyone, but I just do not see the burning need to
know a firm date. It isn't like you're going to drop dead of
cancer the next day if you don't download it and immediately
install it. Do what you think best, of course. As for me, and
many others, we will wait and lurk and let OTHER people beta test
for MS or ANY developer, and we are equally cautious and wary
about beta testing new software, e.g., Vista, on our Visa cards.

And, one more time, NO company selling ANY product soft or hard
EVER pre-announces far out UNLESS it is somehow advantageous to
THEM for PR or marketing reasons. Think about this one for a
minute: making XP work better ain't in MS's best interest, they
want you to buy a Vista upgrade. BUT, they DO have their OWN
interests in mind as I've said before, and if bundling all this
stuff into an SP saves them support time and money, they will do
it.

Good luck on whatever you decide to do.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
message ...
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| wrote:
|
|
| "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| ...
| | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for
| | 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary."
| |
| | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...ervicepacks.ms
| | px
|
| BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date for
| SP3.
|
|
| No, they have made *no* changes because they have announced
| no dates. Words like "preliminary" and "currently plan"
| indicate that these are rough estimates, not promises.
|
| If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or
| change it, that's a failure to keep their promises. Changing
| an estimate is not.
|
|
| And, they
| always say it's preliminary ;-)
|
|
| Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like that
| when the date is far enough in the future that they are
| unsure of it. When they are closer to a release date and feel
| assured of making it, *then* they will announce a date.
|
|
| --
| Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| Please Reply to the Newsgroup






--
HP, aka Jerry
  #37  
Old August 15th 07, 02:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Tom Willett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 791
Default XP SP3 Details?

I don't disagree with you. I am not pushing for SP3, nor do I have a desire
to be concerned about it until it's actually released.

I was only pointing out that the release period can change, as they have
done 2 or 3 times. It's all tentative.

Tom
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
| Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
| jour ...
|
| I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site showing
| different tentative release periods.
|
| Tom, please keep this in mind. First, there is NO reason on God's
| Green Earth to be lusting after SP3, no matter WHAT it has in it.
| Quite the contrary, you should be wary and cautious to the point
| of being frightened of the prospect if you intend to be an early
| adopter. I am NOT saying that MS EVER intentionally screws up,
| but they DO occasionally mess up a critical update or some other
| update. Hopefully, by the time an SP is put together, they've
| ascertained whatever the problem is and fixed it, or they may
| have simply ignored it if the number of bad reports is small.
|
| As to multiple dates on the web site, so what?! I'm not whacking
| on you, Tom, or anyone, but I just do not see the burning need to
| know a firm date. It isn't like you're going to drop dead of
| cancer the next day if you don't download it and immediately
| install it. Do what you think best, of course. As for me, and
| many others, we will wait and lurk and let OTHER people beta test
| for MS or ANY developer, and we are equally cautious and wary
| about beta testing new software, e.g., Vista, on our Visa cards.
|
| And, one more time, NO company selling ANY product soft or hard
| EVER pre-announces far out UNLESS it is somehow advantageous to
| THEM for PR or marketing reasons. Think about this one for a
| minute: making XP work better ain't in MS's best interest, they
| want you to buy a Vista upgrade. BUT, they DO have their OWN
| interests in mind as I've said before, and if bundling all this
| stuff into an SP saves them support time and money, they will do
| it.
|
| Good luck on whatever you decide to do.
|
| "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
| message ...
| | On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for
| | | 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary."
| | |
| | | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...ervicepacks.ms
| | | px
| |
| | BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date for
| | SP3.
| |
| |
| | No, they have made *no* changes because they have announced
| | no dates. Words like "preliminary" and "currently plan"
| | indicate that these are rough estimates, not promises.
| |
| | If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or
| | change it, that's a failure to keep their promises. Changing
| | an estimate is not.
| |
| |
| | And, they
| | always say it's preliminary ;-)
| |
| |
| | Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like that
| | when the date is far enough in the future that they are
| | unsure of it. When they are closer to a release date and feel
| | assured of making it, *then* they will announce a date.
| |
| |
| | --
| | Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| | Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| HP, aka Jerry


  #38  
Old August 15th 07, 03:22 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I don't disagree with you. I am not pushing for SP3, nor do I
have a desire to be concerned about it until it's actually
released.

I was only pointing out that the release period can change, as
they have done 2 or 3 times. It's all tentative.

Tom


OK, Tom. Forgive me if I sounded stident or obstructionist, it is
just that I see so many people screw themselves into the ground
needlessly with unverified updates. You are correct, the update
date is tentative, and will be until it is announced - by
definition, right? Look what happened to MS when they advertised
last year that Vista would ship at Thanksgiving in time for the
Christmas buying season. It was a major PR disaster for them to
have to admit that THEY thought it was still too unstable to
release, and they delayed it for some months. Don't think they
intend to make that mistake again.

Now, I am certain they DO advise their developer base as well as
both private and public beta testers of the availability of beta
builds of what will become SP3.

And, Tom, I'm still curious. Why are you interested, perhaps to
the point of worrying about it, exactly when MS decides to
release? If your system is running fine now, and you've gotten
all the updates to install correctly, why temp fate? Once again,
these are the opinions of a wary old fool, YMMV.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
| Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
| jour ...
|
| I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site
| showing different tentative release periods.
|
| Tom, please keep this in mind. First, there is NO reason on
| God's Green Earth to be lusting after SP3, no matter WHAT it
| has in it. Quite the contrary, you should be wary and
| cautious to the point of being frightened of the prospect if
| you intend to be an early adopter. I am NOT saying that MS
| EVER intentionally screws up, but they DO occasionally mess
| up a critical update or some other update. Hopefully, by the
| time an SP is put together, they've ascertained whatever the
| problem is and fixed it, or they may have simply ignored it
| if the number of bad reports is small.
|
| As to multiple dates on the web site, so what?! I'm not
| whacking on you, Tom, or anyone, but I just do not see the
| burning need to know a firm date. It isn't like you're going
| to drop dead of cancer the next day if you don't download it
| and immediately install it. Do what you think best, of
| course. As for me, and many others, we will wait and lurk and
| let OTHER people beta test for MS or ANY developer, and we
| are equally cautious and wary about beta testing new
| software, e.g., Vista, on our Visa cards.
|
| And, one more time, NO company selling ANY product soft or
| hard EVER pre-announces far out UNLESS it is somehow
| advantageous to THEM for PR or marketing reasons. Think about
| this one for a minute: making XP work better ain't in MS's
| best interest, they want you to buy a Vista upgrade. BUT,
| they DO have their OWN interests in mind as I've said before,
| and if bundling all this stuff into an SP saves them support
| time and money, they will do it.
|
| Good luck on whatever you decide to do.
|
| "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote
| in message
| ...
| | On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned
| | | for 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary."
| | |
| | | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks
| | | .ms px
| |
| | BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date
| | for SP3.
| |
| |
| | No, they have made *no* changes because they have
| | announced no dates. Words like "preliminary" and
| | "currently plan" indicate that these are rough estimates,
| | not promises.
| |
| | If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or
| | change it, that's a failure to keep their promises.
| | Changing an estimate is not.
| |
| |
| | And, they
| | always say it's preliminary ;-)
| |
| |
| | Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like
| | that when the date is far enough in the future that they
| | are unsure of it. When they are closer to a release date
| | and feel assured of making it, *then* they will announce a
| | date.
| |
| |
| | --
| | Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| | Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| HP, aka Jerry






--
HP, aka Jerry
  #39  
Old August 15th 07, 03:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Tom Willett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 791
Default XP SP3 Details?

I am *not* interested in it, and I'm *not* worrying about it. Period. I
was simply pointing out that release dates *change*. I couldn't care less
if they ever release the darn thing ;-)

Tom

|
| And, Tom, I'm still curious. Why are you interested, perhaps to
| the point of worrying about it, exactly when MS decides to
| release? If your system is running fine now, and you've gotten
| all the updates to install correctly, why temp fate? Once again,
| these are the opinions of a wary old fool, YMMV.
|
| "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
| ...
| | Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
| | jour ...
| |
| | I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site
| | showing different tentative release periods.
| |
| | Tom, please keep this in mind. First, there is NO reason on
| | God's Green Earth to be lusting after SP3, no matter WHAT it
| | has in it. Quite the contrary, you should be wary and
| | cautious to the point of being frightened of the prospect if
| | you intend to be an early adopter. I am NOT saying that MS
| | EVER intentionally screws up, but they DO occasionally mess
| | up a critical update or some other update. Hopefully, by the
| | time an SP is put together, they've ascertained whatever the
| | problem is and fixed it, or they may have simply ignored it
| | if the number of bad reports is small.
| |
| | As to multiple dates on the web site, so what?! I'm not
| | whacking on you, Tom, or anyone, but I just do not see the
| | burning need to know a firm date. It isn't like you're going
| | to drop dead of cancer the next day if you don't download it
| | and immediately install it. Do what you think best, of
| | course. As for me, and many others, we will wait and lurk and
| | let OTHER people beta test for MS or ANY developer, and we
| | are equally cautious and wary about beta testing new
| | software, e.g., Vista, on our Visa cards.
| |
| | And, one more time, NO company selling ANY product soft or
| | hard EVER pre-announces far out UNLESS it is somehow
| | advantageous to THEM for PR or marketing reasons. Think about
| | this one for a minute: making XP work better ain't in MS's
| | best interest, they want you to buy a Vista upgrade. BUT,
| | they DO have their OWN interests in mind as I've said before,
| | and if bundling all this stuff into an SP saves them support
| | time and money, they will do it.
| |
| | Good luck on whatever you decide to do.
| |
| | "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote
| | in message
| | ...
| | | On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | |
| | | "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned
| | | | for 1H CY2008. This date is preliminary."
| | | |
| | | | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks
| | | | .ms px
| | |
| | | BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date
| | | for SP3.
| | |
| | |
| | | No, they have made *no* changes because they have
| | | announced no dates. Words like "preliminary" and
| | | "currently plan" indicate that these are rough estimates,
| | | not promises.
| | |
| | | If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or
| | | change it, that's a failure to keep their promises.
| | | Changing an estimate is not.
| | |
| | |
| | | And, they
| | | always say it's preliminary ;-)
| | |
| | |
| | | Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like
| | | that when the date is far enough in the future that they
| | | are unsure of it. When they are closer to a release date
| | | and feel assured of making it, *then* they will announce a
| | | date.
| | |
| | |
| | | --
| | | Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| | | Please Reply to the Newsgroup
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | --
| | HP, aka Jerry
|
|
|
|
|
|
| --
| HP, aka Jerry


  #40  
Old August 15th 07, 04:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default XP SP3 Details?

Totally understand. Bear in mind however that each release of a new
operating system does so much more than the previous release.
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

Also, ask yourself "why is the situation deteriorating". The
advancement of PC's has been absolutely phenomenal. Look what
they do today compared to two years ago. Advancement????


This time I have the quotes straight. What I meant was that each
successive release of Windows in the exact sequence you mention has
been virtually an order of magnitude more complexity and lines of
code, no matter of what type. So, again, I am hardly bashing MS or
anyone, simply observing that /I/ feel that the situation is
"deteriotating" in that Vista cannot help but be a problematical
O/S until at least SP1, until at least all the HW manufacturers
fully come on board with drivers, and all the major SW developers
do the same. That's not being negative, it is being practical. As
I'm sure you're aware, my watchword is that I will NOT beta test
anyone's new anything with my Visa card. If others want to, that's
fine by me. OK, friends?

--
HP, aka Jerry



  #41  
Old August 15th 07, 04:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Tom Willett added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I am *not* interested in it, and I'm *not* worrying about it.
Period. I was simply pointing out that release dates
*change*. I couldn't care less if they ever release the darn
thing ;-)

OK! Don't get excited! If I may just make the observation, if you
were as ambivalent as you say, why are you making such a (apparent)
fuss over what is really a non-problem? I'm with your last, I
really don't care when they release it, I'll wait anyway.

Have a good week. As for me, I'm going to shoot car pictures this
afternoon of the cars staging for the annual Woodward Dream Cruise
and intend to forget this PC stuff for awhile.

Incidently, Tom, one of our new vehicles was expected to be at
dealers in May, maybe June, and hasn't shown up yet, which tells me
that we're having an analogous problem to what MS had with Vista
last year, some production hitch. If I were in the market for this
vehicle, I'd probably be damn well ****ed that I can't get it, but
I would MUCH prefer Chrysler to find and fix whatever the
productioon problems or parts shortages are than to have them ship
potential crap, as we did like all the car makers until they got
religion in the late 1980s/1990s that it ain't smart to destroy
their rep by shipping less than the very best vehicles they can.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #42  
Old August 15th 07, 04:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default XP SP3 Details?

One of the bad features of autoupdate is that it only provides you with
security updates. Never gives you an update for a driver for example. I do
my updates manually and on at least two occasions stopped a download that
should NOT have been presented.
"ben" wrote in message
...
HEMI-Powered wrote:
I agree with you about not getting enthralled with the next MS compendium
of fixes. First, MS's long track record of really bad releases of not
only individual patches but SPs has taught me to be VERY wary of being
the first kid on the block to install the latest and greatest. e.g., I
waited over a year after SP2 to be sure that the early adopters were
happy. While I obviously do not think SP3 will be that big a deal as you
say, there is still a STRONG likelihood of a major blow-down upon
install, especially if it includes IE7. I say that because I have
declined to install maybe 10-15% of today's SP2 critical updates after
lurking for awhile in these many MS NGs and seeing that those with auto
update turned on had grievous problems. And, I have a strong philosophy
of not trying to fix things that aren't broken, so if I think I've gotten
the updates I need/want - and I do think that - then in all likelihood I
will simply acquire SP3 but not install it on my present PC.


My PC is about 3 years old now with autoupdate on and have never had any
problems due to autoupdate.



  #43  
Old August 15th 07, 04:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Totally understand. Bear in mind however that each release of
a new operating system does so much more than the previous


This is PRECISELY why I hold the view I do - because it IS bigger
and far more complex. With Windows, since MS is obviously loathe
to destroy people's ability to use older, legacy apps and HW,
they must of necessity build every damn thing they've ever
encountered into each new release.

An easy example of this is the still annoying requirement not to
use the old DOS wildcard characters and other special characters
in a file name. Once they went to 255 char names, I think they
should at least give users the option of turning that off if they
know they're not running any "DOS" apps, which XP doesn't really
support anyway, or even really old Win 3.1 8.3 file name apps.

It is said that XP SP2 was an 80%+ rewrite, and I would imagine
that Vista is not only an order of magnitude bigger and more
complex, it is also a virtually 100% fresh-sheet-of-paper
rewrite. That is always good, but carries it's own risks. But
then, nothing in life is without risks, is it?

Have a great day!

release. "HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Also, ask yourself "why is the situation deteriorating". The
advancement of PC's has been absolutely phenomenal. Look
what they do today compared to two years ago.
Advancement????


This time I have the quotes straight. What I meant was that
each successive release of Windows in the exact sequence you
mention has been virtually an order of magnitude more
complexity and lines of code, no matter of what type. So,
again, I am hardly bashing MS or anyone, simply observing
that /I/ feel that the situation is "deteriotating" in that
Vista cannot help but be a problematical O/S until at least
SP1, until at least all the HW manufacturers fully come on
board with drivers, and all the major SW developers do the
same. That's not being negative, it is being practical. As
I'm sure you're aware, my watchword is that I will NOT beta
test anyone's new anything with my Visa card. If others want
to, that's fine by me. OK, friends?

--
HP, aka Jerry







--
HP, aka Jerry
  #44  
Old August 15th 07, 04:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

One of the bad features of autoupdate is that it only provides
you with security updates. Never gives you an update for a
driver for example. I do my updates manually and on at least
two occasions stopped a download that should NOT have been
presented.


Once again, this is my opinion and YMMV, but I vastly prefer to
get drivers from the HW manufacturer if I can at all, unless
there is some good reason to get them from MS. I've had too many
printer drivers, mainly for HP printers, simply not work at all
or not take advantage of the entire suite of features.

Incidently, I NEVER recommend updating drivers just for the
helluva-it! Way too much risk of destroying a working system if
you don't have the previous version handy AND you get even get to
your old files. I ONLY update drivers, of ANY/ALL kinds when I
have a known problem or there is some major enhancement I lust
after. And, honestly, I can't remember an example since I need a
driver for my old wide-carriage HP 1220C for XP, which HP happily
provided, as did MicroTek for my old Scanmaker 4 flatbed scanner.
In both cases, the MS driver was a POS.

"ben" wrote in message
...
HEMI-Powered wrote:
I agree with you about not getting enthralled with the next
MS compendium of fixes. First, MS's long track record of
really bad releases of not only individual patches but SPs
has taught me to be VERY wary of being the first kid on the
block to install the latest and greatest. e.g., I waited
over a year after SP2 to be sure that the early adopters
were happy. While I obviously do not think SP3 will be that
big a deal as you say, there is still a STRONG likelihood of
a major blow-down upon install, especially if it includes
IE7. I say that because I have declined to install maybe
10-15% of today's SP2 critical updates after lurking for
awhile in these many MS NGs and seeing that those with auto
update turned on had grievous problems. And, I have a strong
philosophy of not trying to fix things that aren't broken,
so if I think I've gotten the updates I need/want - and I do
think that - then in all likelihood I will simply acquire
SP3 but not install it on my present PC.


My PC is about 3 years old now with autoupdate on and have
never had any problems due to autoupdate.







--
HP, aka Jerry
  #45  
Old August 15th 07, 04:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,542
Default XP SP3 Details?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:19:44 -0500, "Tom Willett"
wrote:

I'll rephrase it. They made changes to their web site showing different
tentative release periods.



OK, thanks.

I don't mean to give you a hard time over this, but there are many
people (not necessarily you) who see things like your original post,
and conclude that Microsoft has missed their scheduled dates, reneged
on their promises, is late once again, etc.

They simply don't understand the difference between an estimate and a
promise.





"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:00:05 -0500, "Tom Willett"
| wrote:
|
|
| "ANONYMOUS" wrote in message
| ...
| | "SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008.
| | This date is preliminary."
| |
| | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lif...vicepacks.mspx
|
| BTW, this is the third change MS has made to the date for SP3.
|
|
| No, they have made *no* changes because they have announced no dates.
| Words like "preliminary" and "currently plan" indicate that these are
| rough estimates, not promises.
|
| If they announce a firm release date and then miss it, or change it,
| that's a failure to keep their promises. Changing an estimate is not.
|
|
| And, they
| always say it's preliminary ;-)
|
|
| Just like almost everyone else does, they use words like that when the
| date is far enough in the future that they are unsure of it. When they
| are closer to a release date and feel assured of making it, *then*
| they will announce a date.
|
|
| --
| Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.