I see several message threads started here by people who have had
trouble installing SP2. I'm having trouble even downloading SP2.

When I tried to open the download page I got a message which told me
that I "must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later." My
preferred browser is Firefox, but I quit Firefox and started IE 6. I
immediately got "Webpage unavailable off-line," accompanied by a
dialog box which asked me if I wanted to connect. When I clicked the
Connect button, the browser displayed a dial-up dialog box.

I restarted Firefox and confirmed that it had no trouble connecting to
the Internet. Nor did any of my other Internet applications. I quit
Internet Explorer and restarted it, but had the same problem. I quit
again and rebooted, but still had the same problem.

I looked at Internet Explorer's Tools Options dialog box, but I didn't
find any controls that were helpful. I found something called an
Internet Connection Wizard, but it just told me that my connection was
fine, and when I asked it to go ahead anyway it opened the dial-up
dialog box.

Taking another approach, I configured Automatic Updates to "Download
updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I
rebooted, Automatic Update told me that exactly one update was
available: an update for the Windows Package Installer. Apparently it
doesn't think I need SP2, or doesn't know that such a thing exists.

I had to put this problem aside to deal with some other things, and a
few days later IE 6 spontaneously began working again. Before I could
download SP2, however, it reverted to "Webpage unavailable off-line."
Several days later it is still doing that.

How can I figure out what is wrong with Internet Explorer, and how can
I fix it?

Alternatively, how can I download SP2 with Firefox? The "must have
Internet Explorer 5 or later" page has a link to something called the
Microsoft Download Center for use "if you prefer to use a different
web browser," but it just led me back to the same place.

"Jonathan Sachs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I see several message threads started here by people who have had
> trouble installing SP2. I'm having trouble even downloading SP2.
>
> When I tried to open the download page I got a message which told me
> that I "must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later." My
> preferred browser is Firefox, but I quit Firefox and started IE 6. I
> immediately got "Webpage unavailable off-line," accompanied by a
> dialog box which asked me if I wanted to connect. When I clicked the
> Connect button, the browser displayed a dial-up dialog box.
>
> I restarted Firefox and confirmed that it had no trouble connecting to
> the Internet. Nor did any of my other Internet applications. I quit
> Internet Explorer and restarted it, but had the same problem. I quit
> again and rebooted, but still had the same problem.
>
> I looked at Internet Explorer's Tools Options dialog box, but I didn't
> find any controls that were helpful. I found something called an
> Internet Connection Wizard, but it just told me that my connection was
> fine, and when I asked it to go ahead anyway it opened the dial-up
> dialog box.
>
> Taking another approach, I configured Automatic Updates to "Download
> updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I
> rebooted, Automatic Update told me that exactly one update was
> available: an update for the Windows Package Installer. Apparently it
> doesn't think I need SP2, or doesn't know that such a thing exists.
>
> I had to put this problem aside to deal with some other things, and a
> few days later IE 6 spontaneously began working again. Before I could
> download SP2, however, it reverted to "Webpage unavailable off-line."
> Several days later it is still doing that.
>
> How can I figure out what is wrong with Internet Explorer, and how can
> I fix it?
>
> Alternatively, how can I download SP2 with Firefox? The "must have
> Internet Explorer 5 or later" page has a link to something called the
> Microsoft Download Center for use "if you prefer to use a different
> web browser," but it just led me back to the same place.

In the Internet Options (access through the Control Panel or right-click on the desktop icon) check
under connections to see if you have "always dial the default connection" marked. Try disabling
that so that the dial-up window does not appear.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 08:36:00 -0700, "Richard in AZ"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In the Internet Options (access through the Control Panel or right-click on the desktop icon) check
>under connections to see if you have "always dial the default connection" marked. Try disabling
>that so that the dial-up window does not appear.


I checked, and that option is not selected. The "Dial whenever a
network connection is not present" option is selected.

When I started Internet Explorer this time, it loaded my ISP's home
page, but failed to download any of the icons or graphics referenced
in it. When I tried to reload the page I got "The webpage you
requested is not available off-line" again.

Instead of the Express Installation, download the Network Installation or
order SP-2 on CD, Step 1 on this page:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Jonathan Sachs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I see several message threads started here by people who have had
> trouble installing SP2. I'm having trouble even downloading SP2.
>
> When I tried to open the download page I got a message which told me
> that I "must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 or later." My
> preferred browser is Firefox, but I quit Firefox and started IE 6. I
> immediately got "Webpage unavailable off-line," accompanied by a
> dialog box which asked me if I wanted to connect. When I clicked the
> Connect button, the browser displayed a dial-up dialog box.
>
> I restarted Firefox and confirmed that it had no trouble connecting to
> the Internet. Nor did any of my other Internet applications. I quit
> Internet Explorer and restarted it, but had the same problem. I quit
> again and rebooted, but still had the same problem.
>
> I looked at Internet Explorer's Tools Options dialog box, but I didn't
> find any controls that were helpful. I found something called an
> Internet Connection Wizard, but it just told me that my connection was
> fine, and when I asked it to go ahead anyway it opened the dial-up
> dialog box.
>
> Taking another approach, I configured Automatic Updates to "Download
> updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I
> rebooted, Automatic Update told me that exactly one update was
> available: an update for the Windows Package Installer. Apparently it
> doesn't think I need SP2, or doesn't know that such a thing exists.
>
> I had to put this problem aside to deal with some other things, and a
> few days later IE 6 spontaneously began working again. Before I could
> download SP2, however, it reverted to "Webpage unavailable off-line."
> Several days later it is still doing that.
>
> How can I figure out what is wrong with Internet Explorer, and how can
> I fix it?
>
> Alternatively, how can I download SP2 with Firefox? The "must have
> Internet Explorer 5 or later" page has a link to something called the
> Microsoft Download Center for use "if you prefer to use a different
> web browser," but it just led me back to the same place.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:54:59 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Instead of the Express Installation, download the Network Installation or
>order SP-2 on CD, Step 1 on this page:
>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

I tried following those instructions and ran into further
difficulties. They are leading me to reevaluate the entire idea of
installing SP2. I will explain; I hope you can give me some reason to
believe that installing SP2 is not unacceptably reckless.

The URL leads to a page on an MVP website, which gives information
about a variety of service pack issues. While looking for the
appropriate link I found a warning, "If you have a PRESCOTT CPU, STOP
and check with the manufacturer before continuing..." It warned me
that certain Prescott CPUs have a microcode problem that will cause
SP2 to produce an unbootable system, a problem which can be fixed only
by a complicated, time-consuming process that the unaware user could
not possibly figure out without help -- help that would be unavailable
once his system was munged.

I don't know whether I have a Prescott CPU, and the advice to "check
with the manufacturer" is meaningless, since I assembled this system
myself. The page offered a link to an Intel utility which it promised
would tell me what CPU I have. I accordingly downloaded and installed
the utility. When I ran it, it told me that:

"The tested Intel(R) processor is not supported by the Intel Processor
Frequency ID Utility. This utility is designed for Intel(R)
Pentium(R) III and earlier processors."

Then it referred me to a different URL for later processors.

I downloaded the updated utility. Although it was offered as an MSI
file, it started running on its own after the download. This was
harmless, but unsettling. I can easily imagine situations where
running software automatically after download would have disastrous
consequences. NO download should EVER do this without warning the user
first and giving him the option to download only, or at least to abort
the download. Although Intel would seem to be a reliable source of
software, this experience at least makes me question the reliability
of the website involved, and impairs my trust in the instructions that
led me there!

The utility identified my CPU's type, family, model, etc., but did not
tell me whether it is a Prescott or not. I consulted its help file,
but the word "Prescott" did not occur there. Nor were the
instructions on the MVP page helpful. I have not pursued this issue
further, for reasons I explain below.

Here's what I see so far:

1. SP2 was released on 6 August 2004 with a bug that makes it crash
certain systems even in safe mode, and the recovery procedure is
obscure enough that an independent user without an alternate means of
accessing the Internet would have no hope of recovery.

2. Over two years later, Microsoft apparently has not fixed this
problem. (If it had, the warning would presumably have been removed.
At the very least, the problem must not have been fixed before the
instructions were last updated on 19 April 2006, over 19 months after
SP2 was introduced.)

3. Over two years or 19 months later, Microsoft does not even
identify the problem and recovery procedure in its online support
material. (If it did, you would have been able to refer me to a
Microsoft webpage rather than a third-party page which is apparently
maintained by MVPs.)

4. Due to some additional snafu, the instructions on the MVP website
refer me to a version of an Intel diagnostic utility that does not
work on Pentium 4 CPUs, although only Pentium 4 CPUs are susceptible
to the problem the utility is supposed to identify. This impairs my
confidence in the MVP website's advice, and my experiences on Intel's
website impair it further.

5. Over two years after SP2 was introduced, its download process
still suffers from multiple problems.

6. Internet Explorer, Microsoft's official browser, is prone to at
least one crippling problem -- a problem which must be so difficult to
diagnose or solve that, when it occurs, MVPs give advice on how to
avoid using the browser instead of how to fix it .

I have not installed SP2 before now because, to be blunt, I don't
trust Microsoft. I expect any software patch they offer to be buggy,
and to carry a high risk of introducing more problems or worse
problems than it solves.

But I haven't installed a Windows service pack since the days of
Windows 2000, so I have come to feel that my attitude must be
outdated, and it is time to relax and give Microsoft a break.

This experience is making me conclude that I am mistaken: Microsoft
patches are just as bad as they ever were. I haven't even downloaded
the service pack yet and I've discovered six problems, five of them
Microsoft's responsibility. At least four of the five are of long
standing, and at least one of those is capable of bringing some users'
systems to a permanent halt. If it weren't for problems (5) and (6)
above, I might have innocently installed the service pack, and then
discovered problems (1) through (4) the hard way.

What other problems might I discover the hard way if I work my way
past these and install the service pack? What assurance can I have
that some other SP2 bug won't leave me with an unbootable system and
no way even to ask for help?

On the other side of the ledger, I need to install SP2 to run the
Vista compatibility utility and determine what hardware upgrades I
will need when I migrate to Vista. I also hope that SP2 will solve
some long-standing Windows stability problems that I have been living
with because of my concern that any attempt to fix them might make
things worse.

I would still like to install SP2, and ultimately Vista, if you can
show me how to do it without risking destruction of my Windows
installation. At the moment the only entirely safe strategy I can
think of is to buy a second hard disk and duplicate my system on it,
so that if everything fell apart I could boot the duplicate.

After I posted the last message I discovered that I was mistaken about
one aspect of the problem. The new version of Intel's CPU ID utility
did not start running on its own when I installed it. Rather, the old
version went ahead and ran after announcing that it was incompatible
with my CPU. It is what I saw after I installed the new version.
This is equally odd behavior, but it is not potentially dangerous.

That leaves me with plenty of concerns about installing SP2, including
all of the serious ones. I hope that you (Mr. Jones, or anyone else)
can address them. They would impact anyone who wants to install a
Windows service pack outside a corporate environment, so I can't
believe that the user community has nothing to contribute, even if
Microsoft has nothing.

I proposed that the only way to install a service pack with a high
degree of confidence that the computer will remain functional is to
buy a second hard disk and create an image of the system partition on
it as a backup. A somewhat less expensive and labor-intensive
strategy would be to use a program like PartitionMagic to back up the
system partition in a second, hidden partition on the same disk. In
principle this would be almost equally safe, but I have reservations
about basing a risk-avoidance strategy on a utility that I have not
used before. I have no personal experience as a basis for trust in
it, and even if the program is perfectly reliable, I do not like the
idea of having to rely on a program that I have no practice using.

Please, folks, what now?

First of all, you should ALWAYS have back-ups of all important data
especially when installing something as major as a Service Pack.
But, you are always just a catastrophic hard drive failure away from total
data loss and that can happen at any time to new or old drives.

Most people do not have problems with Service Pack Installations.
Those that do probably have other preexisting problems.
All problems, known or unknown, should be resolved before installing
anything especially something as major as a Service Pack.

This article points to an update that will prevent the Prescott issue:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=885626
Check your computer to see if it is already installed.
If you are unsure, install it again, it will not hurt.
Also be sure you have the latest BIOS for your motherboard, that may resolve
the issue if you are one of the very few with the problem.
The Service Pack Installation Checklist and related links are not intended
to discourage Service Pack Installation.
Instead it is a reminder of what may need to be done.
A well maintained computer free of malware will usually be ready for a
Service Pack Installation in the time it takes to reboot the computer.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Jonathan Sachs" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:54:59 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Instead of the Express Installation, download the Network Installation or
>>order SP-2 on CD, Step 1 on this page:
>>http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
>
> I tried following those instructions and ran into further
> difficulties. They are leading me to reevaluate the entire idea of
> installing SP2. I will explain; I hope you can give me some reason to
> believe that installing SP2 is not unacceptably reckless.
>
> The URL leads to a page on an MVP website, which gives information
> about a variety of service pack issues. While looking for the
> appropriate link I found a warning, "If you have a PRESCOTT CPU, STOP
> and check with the manufacturer before continuing..." It warned me
> that certain Prescott CPUs have a microcode problem that will cause
> SP2 to produce an unbootable system, a problem which can be fixed only
> by a complicated, time-consuming process that the unaware user could
> not possibly figure out without help -- help that would be unavailable
> once his system was munged.
>
> I don't know whether I have a Prescott CPU, and the advice to "check
> with the manufacturer" is meaningless, since I assembled this system
> myself. The page offered a link to an Intel utility which it promised
> would tell me what CPU I have. I accordingly downloaded and installed
> the utility. When I ran it, it told me that:
>
> "The tested Intel(R) processor is not supported by the Intel Processor
> Frequency ID Utility. This utility is designed for Intel(R)
> Pentium(R) III and earlier processors."
>
> Then it referred me to a different URL for later processors.
>
> I downloaded the updated utility. Although it was offered as an MSI
> file, it started running on its own after the download. This was
> harmless, but unsettling. I can easily imagine situations where
> running software automatically after download would have disastrous
> consequences. NO download should EVER do this without warning the user
> first and giving him the option to download only, or at least to abort
> the download. Although Intel would seem to be a reliable source of
> software, this experience at least makes me question the reliability
> of the website involved, and impairs my trust in the instructions that
> led me there!
>
> The utility identified my CPU's type, family, model, etc., but did not
> tell me whether it is a Prescott or not. I consulted its help file,
> but the word "Prescott" did not occur there. Nor were the
> instructions on the MVP page helpful. I have not pursued this issue
> further, for reasons I explain below.
>
> Here's what I see so far:
>
> 1. SP2 was released on 6 August 2004 with a bug that makes it crash
> certain systems even in safe mode, and the recovery procedure is
> obscure enough that an independent user without an alternate means of
> accessing the Internet would have no hope of recovery.
>
> 2. Over two years later, Microsoft apparently has not fixed this
> problem. (If it had, the warning would presumably have been removed.
> At the very least, the problem must not have been fixed before the
> instructions were last updated on 19 April 2006, over 19 months after
> SP2 was introduced.)
>
> 3. Over two years or 19 months later, Microsoft does not even
> identify the problem and recovery procedure in its online support
> material. (If it did, you would have been able to refer me to a
> Microsoft webpage rather than a third-party page which is apparently
> maintained by MVPs.)
>
> 4. Due to some additional snafu, the instructions on the MVP website
> refer me to a version of an Intel diagnostic utility that does not
> work on Pentium 4 CPUs, although only Pentium 4 CPUs are susceptible
> to the problem the utility is supposed to identify. This impairs my
> confidence in the MVP website's advice, and my experiences on Intel's
> website impair it further.
>
> 5. Over two years after SP2 was introduced, its download process
> still suffers from multiple problems.
>
> 6. Internet Explorer, Microsoft's official browser, is prone to at
> least one crippling problem -- a problem which must be so difficult to
> diagnose or solve that, when it occurs, MVPs give advice on how to
> avoid using the browser instead of how to fix it .
>
> I have not installed SP2 before now because, to be blunt, I don't
> trust Microsoft. I expect any software patch they offer to be buggy,
> and to carry a high risk of introducing more problems or worse
> problems than it solves.
>
> But I haven't installed a Windows service pack since the days of
> Windows 2000, so I have come to feel that my attitude must be
> outdated, and it is time to relax and give Microsoft a break.
>
> This experience is making me conclude that I am mistaken: Microsoft
> patches are just as bad as they ever were. I haven't even downloaded
> the service pack yet and I've discovered six problems, five of them
> Microsoft's responsibility. At least four of the five are of long
> standing, and at least one of those is capable of bringing some users'
> systems to a permanent halt. If it weren't for problems (5) and (6)
> above, I might have innocently installed the service pack, and then
> discovered problems (1) through (4) the hard way.
>
> What other problems might I discover the hard way if I work my way
> past these and install the service pack? What assurance can I have
> that some other SP2 bug won't leave me with an unbootable system and
> no way even to ask for help?
>
> On the other side of the ledger, I need to install SP2 to run the
> Vista compatibility utility and determine what hardware upgrades I
> will need when I migrate to Vista. I also hope that SP2 will solve
> some long-standing Windows stability problems that I have been living
> with because of my concern that any attempt to fix them might make
> things worse.
>
> I would still like to install SP2, and ultimately Vista, if you can
> show me how to do it without risking destruction of my Windows
> installation. At the moment the only entirely safe strategy I can
> think of is to buy a second hard disk and duplicate my system on it,
> so that if everything fell apart I could boot the duplicate.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 01:10:55 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>First of all, you should ALWAYS have back-ups of all important data
>especially when installing something as major as a Service Pack.
>But, you are always just a catastrophic hard drive failure away from total
>data loss and that can happen at any time to new or old drives.

In my world, that goes without saying. It does not justify applying
system patches with a known potential for bringing down the system,
though, any more than wearing a seatbelt justifies engaging in
behavior that is liable to roll your car.

>Most people do not have problems with Service Pack Installations.
>Those that do probably have other preexisting problems.
>All problems, known or unknown, should be resolved before installing
>anything especially something as major as a Service Pack.

That's pretty much equivalent to saying that no one should ever
install anything. THINK. If a piece of software contains unknown
problems -- and I think we've established that Windows service packs
are prone to contain serious ones -- how can the user be expected to
resolve them?

In my previous message I expressed concern about installing an update
produced by an organization that seems to be unable to correct
disabling problems in its software roughly two years after they became
known, or even to document them properly. Being told that it will
probably work out all right, and if it doesn't it's probably my own
fault, does nothing to reassure me.

I'm not going to install SP2, or any other Microsoft update, until I
can find time to back up the system partition, and preferably the
entire drive.

"Jonathan Sachs" wrote

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 01:10:55 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>First of all, you should ALWAYS have back-ups of all important data
>>especially when installing something as major as a Service Pack.
>>But, you are always just a catastrophic hard drive failure away from total
>>data loss and that can happen at any time to new or old drives.
>
> In my world, that goes without saying. It does not justify applying
> system patches with a known potential for bringing down the system,
> though, any more than wearing a seatbelt justifies engaging in
> behavior that is liable to roll your car.
>
>>Most people do not have problems with Service Pack Installations.
>>Those that do probably have other preexisting problems.
>>All problems, known or unknown, should be resolved before installing
>>anything especially something as major as a Service Pack.
>
> That's pretty much equivalent to saying that no one should ever
> install anything. THINK. If a piece of software contains unknown
> problems -- and I think we've established that Windows service packs
> are prone to contain serious ones -- how can the user be expected to
> resolve them?
>
> In my previous message I expressed concern about installing an update
> produced by an organization that seems to be unable to correct
> disabling problems in its software roughly two years after they became
> known, or even to document them properly. Being told that it will
> probably work out all right, and if it doesn't it's probably my own
> fault, does nothing to reassure me.
>
> I'm not going to install SP2, or any other Microsoft update, until I
> can find time to back up the system partition, and preferably the
> entire drive.


I have installed SP2 many times, and with a properly prepared and well
running system, not had any problems. This is a major upgrade to the OS.
There are many things that can go wrong based on the composition of the
underlying system. Seems common sense to me not to apply such an extensive
OS upgrade without having a backup. But then I have used a drive imaging
program for a long time and never make any changes to the system without
having a current image. Things can go wrong no matter how well written an
application might be. Why you are focusing on MS updates I don't know. Any
application installation can cause havoc.

It seems to me nothing that anyone says is going to have much of an impact
here. You are locked in to a certain way of thinking on this issue. Don't
install SP2, now or ever, makes no difference to me, certainly, nor to
others I'm sure. Why should people spend their time trying to reassure you?
Good luck to you.

--
Rock [MVP - User/Shell]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:37:50 -0800, "Rock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Seems common sense to me not to apply such an extensive
>OS upgrade without having a backup. But then I have used a drive imaging
>program for a long time and never make any changes to the system without
>having a current image.

>...It seems to me nothing that anyone says is going to have much of an impact
>here. You are locked in to a certain way of thinking on this issue.

I know that as MVPs, you and Jupiter are constrained. You're not in
any position to acknowledge how poorly Microsoft manages its Windows
technical support.

Nevertheless, if you're seriously interested in helping users, you can
and should try to offer constructive suggestions even when there is no
good solution to a problem.

Over years, I have observed that when MVPs have no good solution to
offer they offer a bad one, and if I point out its flaws, they try to
make flaws, or the problem itself, my fault. This does the user no
good, and it generally does not even make the MVP look good.

The only really good idea that came up in this exchange was the use of
a partition management utility to create a backup partition. I came
up with that idea myself, although you evidently could have
contributed it from your own experience at the beginning. And from
that, you conclude that I am "locked in to a certain way of thinking"
and won't accept help? I don't think so.