SP2: any problems?

[Dave C.]

The problem did exist. The BIOS was badly written but the motherboard

maker "got away with it" because the functionality wasn't used.

Its akin to having a broken car heater on a car that is used solely in
the Sahara desert. Untl you go somewhere where its so cold you need to
use the heater you'll not know its broken.

That's a good point. Now how do we fix the problem? Two choices I see:

A) Microsoft tweaks SP2 a bit so that this issue is resolved completely

B) Dozens of mainboard manufacturers release updates for their BIOS and
then somehow convince millions of computer users to update their BIOS. Oh,
this means many of those BIOS flashes will fail, causing REAL hardware
problems.

Which of these two do you think is a better solution? Who had the power to
avoid this mess in the first place? -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

Find someone who repairs PCs. Ask them to fix it.

Not practical advice. Bringing in outside help can be expensive at worst,
and time consuming at best. If you've got work to do on your computer, you
need an easy fix that can be done immediately without outside help. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

And, again, the bad politician repeats a falsehood he's already been shown
is a falsehood.

According to you. It's odd that Microsoft disagrees with you on this point.
Maybe they should hire you, as you obviously know something that they
on't. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

ROFLMAO!

You're joking, right? That's like saying that you need to be an
auto mechanic to ~drive a car~.

Get with reality, you bumpkin.

Well said. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

And here is the reason that worms, trojans and viruses are so rampant
on the internet...

HUH?!? You're saying that someone who can install a software firewall and
antivirus program should intuitively know to disable L1/L2 cache if SP2
causes Windows not to boot at all? This issue has nothing to do with worms,
trojans or viruses. Well-protected systems can be affected by SP2. If you
don't know how to fix the problem caused by SP2, that doesn't necessarily
mean that you don't know how to work a computer. I wouldn't expect average
computer users or even "WAY ABOVE average" computer users to know the
workarounds for the SP2 issue that causes windows not to boot. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

No it isn't. If your car breaks and you're not an auto mechanic you
take it to a garage to be repaired do you not?

OK. Now what if Microsoft releases software that causes millions of cars to
break down. Should the car owners pay for that? -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

Right. Assuming that you can boot.

To use your auto mechanic example, that's like saying you can only get your
car fixed if you can drive it there.

That would be correct, if there were no towing services available, and you
didn't know who to call anyway. It's not like "friendly computer geek" is
listed in the phone book. Yes, there are professional computer services
that do house calls. They wouldn't be necessary if Mickeysoft would just
fix SP2, though. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

Imagine if

Bad analogy. The more proper analogy is the car maker specs his car to have
'X' compression ratio, the gas is made to, and does, work properly with 'X'
compression ratio but it turns out that some of the cars *aren't* 'X'
compression ratio after all and you blame the gas station.

As I wrote elsewhere, who has the power to fix this problem? Microsoft
could change a few lines of code, or dozens of mainboard manufacturers could
update their BIOS and force millions of computer users to reflash their
BIOS, killing many perfectly good mainboards in the process. Which is the
better solution? They are both correct, but which one is better? I know
you'll probably disagree with me, but I honestly believe Microsoft needs to
take responsibility for fixing this problem, alone. If the various
mainboard manufacturers want to work on it from their end also, that's
INE. -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

That question can't be answered as stated.

Sure it can.

Many systems have a proper BIOS
and functional hardware, but do NOT have a BIOS that is compatible with SP2.

That is false. The BIOSes in question are NOT proper

On these systems, SP2 prevents windows XP from being run, in any manner.

No, Windows XP SP2 hangs because it's confronted with a screwed up BIOS.

As
I wrote before, if someone sold gas that would cause certain car engines to
melt, would you then blame the automobile manufacturer?

And, as I told you before, the analogy is no good and that the more proper
one is: Person comes in with a defective car and you want to blame the gas.

Not bloody likely.
But Microsoft and YOU want to blame this on hardware or firmware.

It would seem you don't understand what a proper BIOS is.

That's
just not logical.

It's your childish and myopic head-in-the-sand presumption that "it ain't
broke if I don't know it's broke' that's illogical.

It could be argued that the mainboard manufacturers
SHOULD release a BIOS update.

No, that is not arguable at all. The BIOS should support the processor it's
specified to run with.

That's a perfectly legitimate argument. But
when there's no BIOS update available, it's also a red herring.

'Fraid not.

On certain
systems that are running the latest BIOS version available and have NO
PROBLEMS AT ALL with hardware or firmware,

Flat false. Get the Intel update sheets for Prescott and read the litany of
problems the processor has without it's proper microcode update.

Just because you've managed to dance through the mine field without hitting
one yet doesn't mean the mines aren't there.

SP2 causes Windows XP not to
boot. Not normally, not safe mode, and not from CD-Rom. If that isn't SP2
conflicting with Windows XP, what is?

It's Windows XP SP2 in 'conflict' with a screwed up BIOS that results in
'the problem'. Update the BIOS and it works fine, so obviously no 'conflict
with XP' because nothing in XP, or SP2, changes for it to work. Run it on
any proper BIOS and it works fine so, again, obviously no 'conflict with XP'.

The problem only occurs with a certain processor combined with a certain
BIOS defect, so THERE is 'the conflict'.



-Dave

 

[David Maynard]

Many computer users don't know a computer knowledgeable person who would be
willing to help them.

And how do you get your car fixed when you "don't know a... knowledgeable
person who would be willing to help?" Or do you just wander around whining
about how clueless you are?

And when your computer is broken, how do you google
it, exactly?

And how do you get your car fixed when you can't drive it to the mechanic's
shop?

The problem is, you and mamma want to argue that problems should never
happen or, if they do, they should only occur in such a manner as to be
'intuitive' and 'easily solvable' by the brain dead.

That just ain't life, pal.

 

[David Maynard]

You are under the mistaken impression that the BIOS is broken.

It is not an 'impression' nor mistaken. It is simply prime facia that the
BIOS should support the processors it's spec'd for. Plain and simple.

On many of
the machines in question, the latest BIOS version available works just fine
without SP2 installed.

No, you mean pre SP2 Windows XP boots on them. That doesn't mean they 'work
just fine'.

That could hardly be called "broken".

It can, and should, because it is.

Note that I'd
agree with you if you say the mainboard manufacturer should release an
updated BIOS version soon.

Of course they should. Should have already.

But not because the BIOS is broken.

That's an absurdum coming from someone who says "don't fix it if it ain't
broke." What's the point of adding processor microcode support if the lack
of it isn't a defect?

Microsoft
really needs to address this issue from THEIR END,

You mean Microsoft should insure that their products operate properly on
defective hardware.

and stop trying to pass
the buck.

And why do you think the BIOS shouldn't need to support the processors it's
spec'd to run?

 

[David Maynard]

Let me get this straight.

Microsoft releases software that breaks perfectly
working systems.

False premise.

The systems were not 'perfectly working' beforehand. The existing flaw was
simply not immediately apparent.

Mainboard manufacturers are guilty of having improper
microcode in the latest BIOS version of some of their systems.

Correct. A definite flaw that should not be there.

The end
result of these two things happening is that many systems become unusable
after SP2 is installed.

Till the defective BIOS is fixed, or a workaround applied.

You think the average computer user should have to
pay a professional to fix a problem that shouldn't exist?

No, I said it was life.

**** that, I say
send the bill to Microsoft.

And why should Microsoft pay for fixing a defective BIOS?

It could be argued the mainboard manufacturers
should receive just as much of the blame. But Microsoft had the last
opportunity to avoid this mess, and they have the best opportunity to fix it
quickly.

Microsoft doesn't manufacture motherboards, processors, nor do processor
microcode or BIOS updates.

That is, it's a lot easier to fix SP2

Your notion of 'fix' seems to be 'leave it broke', but pretend it isn't so
no one knows it's broke.

than it is to force dozens
of mainboard manufacturers to fix their BIOS

And why the hell shouldn't mainboard manufacturers fix their BIOS?

and then somehow force millions
of mainboard owners to update it and risk damaging their mainboard in the
process.

That problem results from mainboard manufacturers sending out motherboards
with a broken BIOS. And it happens all the time, not just with microcode.

That's why I say send the bill to Microsoft. -Dave

Simply silly to blame Microsoft for a mainboard manufacturer's faulty BIOS.

 

[David Maynard]

As I wrote elsewhere, who has the power to fix this problem?

There's only one thing that fixes the problem: proper BIOS microcode.

Microsoft
could change a few lines of code,

The only thing they can do is hide the problem.

or dozens of mainboard manufacturers could
update their BIOS and force millions of computer users to reflash their
BIOS,

If you say that mainboard manufacturers have sent out "millions" of
defective mainboards then so be it.

killing many perfectly good mainboards in the process.

I suppose you tell people to never do a BIOS flash regardless of how broke
it is.

Which is the
better solution?

The one that fixes the problem.

They are both correct,

No, they're not. One fixes the incorrect/missing microcode and the other
simply hides the fact that you have a broken BIOS.

but which one is better?

The one that fixes the problem.

I know
you'll probably disagree with me, but I honestly believe Microsoft needs to
take responsibility for fixing this problem, alone.

They can't. They can only hide it.

If the various
mainboard manufacturers want to work on it from their end also, that's
INE.

I consider having a proper BIOS more than just a casually generous gesture:
it's a requirement.

 

[Shawk]

On certain

systems that are running the latest BIOS version available and have NO
PROBLEMS AT ALL with hardware or firmware, SP2 causes Windows XP not to
boot. Not normally, not safe mode, and not from CD-Rom. If that isn't
SP2
conflicting with Windows XP, what is? -Dave

The new version of XP conflicting with a poorly written BIOS? Shaun

 

[David Maynard]

I will say this as gently as possible. You obviously know hardware pretty
well. From reading your posts, I'd guess you are a IT professional of some
kind. Your weakness is that you need to learn to see computer problems from
the point of view of the average computer user. You are so far ABOVE the
average computer user, that it seems you have lost that point of view
completely.

No, I understand their perspective but that isn't the issue when talking
about the cause of a technical problem: that's out of their domain.

You say SP2 does not conflict with XP. Technically, you are
RIGHT on that. I know that, YOU certainly know that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

The average computer
user who has one of the affected systems would say we are BOTH full of shit
if we said that SP2 has no conflict with Windows XP, though.

One of the benefits of the knowledgeable is to explain it to those who
aren't, not simply mirror their misunderstanding.

As I wrote elsewhere, Microsoft had the last opportunity to prevent this
issue, and Microsoft has the best opportunity to fix it now.

As I've explained, though, they can't 'fix' it; they can only hide it.

Computer
owners shouldn't have to "deal with it",

And it shouldn't ever rain during a picnic either... cars should never
break... termites should be considerate and stay away from homes... yada yada.

I never said problems were fun or desirable. I said it was life.

if Microsoft was responsible enough
to DO SOMETHING about it. Again I'll state that I don't think SP2 is ready
for public release.

In other words, besides not realizing that a specific Prescott stepping is
uniquely problematic when run on a BIOS with improper microcode, their big
sin was 'rushing out' SP2; so you recommend repeating the sin by 'rushing
out' an O.S. 'fix' to cover up the BIOS not having the proper microcode it
should have had to begin with so the user can write off whatever anomalies
the unpatched processor causes to !&%^$#! Windows. (Not to mention that,
for those already afflicted, in order to *get* the cover-up they need to
have already done the workaround that accomplishes the exact same thing, or
have fixed it entirely by getting a proper BIOS update.)

That may make 'some' kind of sense, what kind I'm not sure, but I can say,
for a fact, that's a hard sell in ANY organization; and for good reason.

 

[David Maynard]

That's a good point. Now how do we fix the problem? Two choices I see:

A) Microsoft tweaks SP2 a bit so that this issue is resolved completely

B) Dozens of mainboard manufacturers release updates for their BIOS and
then somehow convince millions of computer users to update their BIOS. Oh,
this means many of those BIOS flashes will fail, causing REAL hardware
problems.

Which of these two do you think is a better solution? Who had the power to
avoid this mess in the first place? -Dave

B, since A is impossible.

 

[David Maynard]

Not practical advice.

It's imminently practical.

Bringing in outside help can be expensive at worst,
and time consuming at best.

Neither of which conflict with it being practical. And certainly more
practical than sitting there whining about how there should never be any
problems in life.

If you've got work to do on your computer, you
need an easy fix that can be done immediately without outside help.

I also 'need' a free lunch.

But then I'm stuck in the real world along with everyone else.

 

[David Maynard]

According to you. It's odd that Microsoft disagrees with you on this point.

Microsoft doesn't disagree with me and that won't change no matter HOW many
times you misrepresent what's on their web site.

Maybe they should hire you, as you obviously know something that they
on't.

Well, that's probably true

 

[Dave C.]

I consider having a proper BIOS more than just a casually generous
gesture:

it's a requirement.

But your definition of a proper BIOS conflicts with reality. If your car
starts up in the morning and takes you to work and back OK, do you CARE if
the spark plugs installed weren't one of the brands recommended by the
manufacturer? Well, you probably do, but nobody else would. -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

That would be correct, if there were no towing services available,

But there are, among other possibilities. And speculating absurdities
doesn't accomplish anything.

and you
didn't know who to call anyway.

I suggest that knowing how to find out is a minimal life skill.

It's not like "friendly computer geek" is
listed in the phone book. Yes, there are professional computer services
that do house calls.

Congratulations. You pass one phase of the minimal life skills test.

They wouldn't be necessary if Mickeysoft would just
fix SP2, though.

The only 'fix' they can do is cover up that the BIOS is broke.

I contend that isn't a 'fix'.