1 in 10 PCs have problems with SP2

[kurttrail]

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157744

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040831S0006

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[David Elders]

Which still means 9 out of 10 should be fine... which is a good ratio given
the enormous variety of hardware platforms and 3rd party software apps that
people somehow expect MS to be able to magically work into the overall
equation...

There are problems within MS software - granted. There are problems with MS
licensing - certainly. But at least they DO respond and try to resolve these
with regular patches and service packs. People can't have it all ways - any
changes to any PC running any operating system by definition carry a risk of
'something' not liking it!

D

 

[kurttrail]

Which still means 9 out of 10 should be fine... which is a good ratio
given the enormous variety of hardware platforms and 3rd party
software apps that people somehow expect MS to be able to magically
work into the overall equation...

It's should be closer to 1% than 10%

There are problems within MS software - granted. There are problems
with MS licensing - certainly. But at least they DO respond and try
to resolve these with regular patches and service packs.

Nearly two years between Service Packs for XP. MS should have been putting
out SP3 this year.

People can't
have it all ways - any changes to any PC running any operating system
by definition carry a risk of 'something' not liking it!

I agree. But one of the articles said that smaller businesses were having
it harder than the larger ones. So when it comes the the Home Users, the
odds are probably even worse.

1% problems would have been acceptable, 10% is a catastrophe. Just think
about how many millions of PCs that 10% represents, just in the US alone.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Did you read these two paragraphs in your second link

"But don't let the one-in-ten PC with compatibility problems spook you, said
O'Halloran. “Even through you're seeing this quantified, don't use that as
an excuse to skirt the issue,” he said.
“Deploy SP2 now. It's for the greater good of the organization, even if some
systems and applications won't work without work.”


--

~~~~~~


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Alias]

1% problems would have been acceptable, 10% is a catastrophe. Just think
about how many millions of PCs that 10% represents, just in the US alone.

And the other languages are even out yet ...

Alias

 

[Gregg Cattanach]

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157744

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040831S0006

If you read the articles, you'll find that the 10% figure comes by counting
a number of PCs in business that have some software listed on MSs known SP2
software list, (programs that have some problem when SP2 is installed.)

The vendors of said software are responsible for creating patches or
work-arounds to solve their incompatibilities with SP2, just like they
needed to create versions that worked on WinXP when it came out.

This article doesn't say SP2 breaks PCs. Just that some 3rd party software
that MS has identified will have incompatibilities.

Gregg C.

 

[kurttrail]

If you read the articles, you'll find that the 10% figure comes by
counting a number of PCs in business that have some software listed
on MSs known SP2 software list, (programs that have some problem when
SP2 is installed.)

"Ottawa-based AssetMetrix probed over 44,000 Windows XP systems housed in
nearly 350 companies to come up with its numbers, matching what it found on
the PCs against various lists that Microsoft has posted of programs that
have, or may have, compatibility issues with the massive SP2 update."

The 10% is all the PCs tested.

The vendors of said software are responsible for creating patches or
work-arounds to solve their incompatibilities with SP2, just like they
needed to create versions that worked on WinXP when it came out.

Thanks to MS's negligence.

This article doesn't say SP2 breaks PCs. Just that some 3rd party
software that MS has identified will have incompatibilities.

LOL! Read the Subject of this thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

Did you read these two paragraphs in your second link

"But don't let the one-in-ten PC with compatibility problems spook
you, said O'Halloran. some 3rd party
software that MS has identified will have incompatibilities.

Gregg C.

Did you read what I wrote?

Did I tell ANYONE not to install SP2?

So shut the f*ck up!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[David Elders]

1% problems would have been acceptable, 10% is a catastrophe. Just think

about how many millions of PCs that 10% represents, just in the US alone.

Exactly. And Microsoft are supposed to manage to bring out software updates
that cater for every conceivable hardware and 3rd party software combination
across ALL those PCs? On a statistical basis alone, that's just another
utopian dream!

I'd hazard a very fair bet that if someone has a fully-patched,
fully-updated version of XP SP1 on hardware that is all on the MS HCL that
their upgrade percentages are far closer to the 1% failure rate you're
hoping for. Problem is that many, many people go throwing any old hardware
at it and expecting MS to be responsible if it doesn't work...

Just my tuppenceworth.

D

 

[Guest]

It's should be closer to 1% than 10%

1% problems would have been acceptable, 10% is a

catastrophe.

From the article:

"On average, 10.3 percent of the Windows XP-based
machines will have an issue of some degree with SP2,"
said Steve O'Halloran, the managing director of
AssetMetrix Research Labs. "Or better put, they have
the 'opportunity' for an issue to arise."

10.3% have an OPPORTUNITY for an issue. And how did they
determine that? By using Microsoft's own published
lists. And first on the list was apps that could have an
issue with a firewall being turned on by default.

Sheesh! It's only 10%??

"The 10 percent rate didn't come as a shock, said
O'Halloran"

No doubt.

 

[Gregg Cattanach]

"Ottawa-based AssetMetrix probed over 44,000 Windows XP systems
housed in nearly 350 companies to come up with its numbers, matching
what it found on the PCs against various lists that Microsoft has
posted of programs that have, or may have, compatibility issues with
the massive SP2 update."

The 10% is all the PCs tested.


Thanks to MS's negligence.


LOL! Read the Subject of this thread.

Aha, Now I understand, the title of the article is all you need to read, not
the content. MS is not negligent when it upgrades its operating system and
this causes some 3rd party software to have issues, many of them regarding
the firewall.

Most of these 3rd party companies have already issuing patches, upgrades and
workarounds to solve these problems.

Gregg C.

 

[kurttrail]

Aha, Now I understand, the title of the article is all you need to
read, not the content.

Dude, the subject is all I wrote in my OP.

"This article doesn't say SP2 breaks PCs."

I never said it did.

MS is not negligent when it upgrades its
operating system and this causes some 3rd party software to have
issues, many of them regarding the firewall.

No, it's negligence happened upon the original release of the
security-challenged WinXP. Now other software manufacturers, that had to
redo their software 3 years ago, have to redo it again. Yep, if I were
them, I'd sue the mother-effers, to get them to pay for it the second time
with the same OS.

Most of these 3rd party companies have already issuing patches,
upgrades and workarounds to solve these problems.

They wouldn't have had to, if MS thought about security when originally
releasing XP. So MS finally has added some security to it's OS, and now
everybody else has to pay for it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Guest]

Not just 3rd party software

If you read the articles, you'll find that the 10% figure comes by counting
a number of PCs in business that have some software listed on MSs known SP2
software list, (programs that have some problem when SP2 is installed.)

The vendors of said software are responsible for creating patches or
work-arounds to solve their incompatibilities with SP2, just like they
needed to create versions that worked on WinXP when it came out.

This article doesn't say SP2 breaks PCs. Just that some 3rd party software
that MS has identified will have incompatibilities.

Gregg C.

 

[Steve Nielsen]

Which still means 9 out of 10 should be fine... which is a good ratio given
the enormous variety of hardware platforms and 3rd party software apps that
people somehow expect MS to be able to magically work into the overall
equation...

10% failure rate has never been acceptible in any industry, period.

MS should have been able to produce a robust and secure enough XP to be
able to run on a wide variety of existing modern hardware base. They
proved they could with Win2K.

There are problems within MS software - granted. There are problems with MS
licensing - certainly. But at least they DO respond and try to resolve these
with regular patches and service packs. People can't have it all ways - any
changes to any PC running any operating system by definition carry a risk of
'something' not liking it!

Over two years between service packs does NOT equate to "regular" in
anyone's book. Niether do security patches released weeks AFTER
vulnerabilities were discovered.

Face it, MS has dropped the ball over and over again with XP. No amount
of "users expecting magical results" excuses can change the facts.

Steve

 

[Jone Doe]

10% failure rate has never been acceptible in any industry, period.

MS should have been able to produce a robust and secure enough XP to be
able to run on a wide variety of existing modern hardware base. They
proved they could with Win2K.
<snip>

Another way to look at it is: 1 of 10 people don't have the sense to follow
instructions.

 

[Steve Nielsen]

Another way to look at it is: 1 of 10 people don't have the sense to follow
instructions.

The only way that's gonna happen is if people have to pass a computer
user license test before being allowed to buy or use a computer.

Besides that, I have enough experience with XP in general to know that
the OS itself can be quite problematic even for people who DO know what
they are doing and who DO follow instructions. Sometimes the bear eats
you. XP often fails if for no other reason than it is bloated with so
many things that there is just that much more to potentially go wrong.

I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
no knowledge of or control over.

Steve

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

"I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
no knowledge of or control over"

Steve: I agree with you. Many average users do not have a clue about
studying the hundreds of pages of FAQs, etc. And to have people chastise
them for it is ludicrous.

Tom

| Jone Doe wrote:
| > | >
| >>David Elders wrote:
| >>
| >>>Which still means 9 out of 10 should be fine... which is a good ratio
| >>>given the enormous variety of hardware platforms and 3rd party software
| >>>apps that people somehow expect MS to be able to magically work into
the
| >>>overall equation...
| >>
| >>10% failure rate has never been acceptible in any industry, period.
| >>
| >>MS should have been able to produce a robust and secure enough XP to be
| >>able to run on a wide variety of existing modern hardware base. They
| >>proved they could with Win2K.
| >> <snip>
| >
| >
| > Another way to look at it is: 1 of 10 people don't have the sense to
follow
| > instructions.
| >
| >
|
| The only way that's gonna happen is if people have to pass a computer
| user license test before being allowed to buy or use a computer.
|
| Besides that, I have enough experience with XP in general to know that
| the OS itself can be quite problematic even for people who DO know what
| they are doing and who DO follow instructions. Sometimes the bear eats
| you. XP often fails if for no other reason than it is bloated with so
| many things that there is just that much more to potentially go wrong.
|
| I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
| which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
| no knowledge of or control over.
|
| Steve
|

 

[Steve N.]

"I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
no knowledge of or control over"

Steve: I agree with you. Many average users do not have a clue about
studying the hundreds of pages of FAQs, etc. And to have people chastise
them for it is ludicrous.

Tom

Thanks for the reply Tom.

"Ludicous" is a good word. So is "arrogance".



Steve

 

[kernel]

"I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
no knowledge of or control over"

Steve: I agree with you. Many average users do not have a clue about
studying the hundreds of pages of FAQs, etc. And to have people chastise
them for it is ludicrous.

Tom

| Jone Doe wrote:
| > | >
| >>David Elders wrote:
| >>
| >>>Which still means 9 out of 10 should be fine... which is a good ratio
| >>>given the enormous variety of hardware platforms and 3rd party software
| >>>apps that people somehow expect MS to be able to magically work into
the
| >>>overall equation...
| >>
| >>10% failure rate has never been acceptible in any industry, period.
| >>
| >>MS should have been able to produce a robust and secure enough XP to be
| >>able to run on a wide variety of existing modern hardware base. They
| >>proved they could with Win2K.
| >> <snip>
| >
| >
| > Another way to look at it is: 1 of 10 people don't have the sense to
follow
| > instructions.
| >
| >
|
| The only way that's gonna happen is if people have to pass a computer
| user license test before being allowed to buy or use a computer.
|
| Besides that, I have enough experience with XP in general to know that
| the OS itself can be quite problematic even for people who DO know what
| they are doing and who DO follow instructions. Sometimes the bear eats
| you. XP often fails if for no other reason than it is bloated with so
| many things that there is just that much more to potentially go wrong.
|
| I honestly tire of some of you folks blaming average users (many of
| which HAVE to use PCs with XP for work or school) for things they have
| no knowledge of or control over.
|
| Steve

I agree that all of the 'my pc works, you must be stupid' answers are a total
waste of bandwidth and a hindrance to those lurking here to learn how to
repair XP; but, I have a very effective solution to the problem...PLONK 'em
all. There are even MVP's in my list. But I'm beginning to worry a little
that my huge 'Plonk list' may bog down XP and/or OE.

 

[Unknown]

First off, where did the 10% figure come from? Someones imagination? Where is
the data? MS DID produce a robust and secure XP, capable to be run on a wide
variety of hardware. Why do service packs have to meet something less than 2
years between issues? It is more than apparent you have no programming
experience whatsoever and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.
Just some emotional gibberish.