SP2: any problems?

[Dave C.]

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'.

Simple question . . . how hard would it be for Microsoft to program Windows
Update to check for the proper microcode before installing SP2 on a system
where SP2 will cause windows not to boot? Now how many programmers does
Microsoft employ? How many of them would it take to make this simple
change? -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

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.

And you would apparently prefer that cars are only driven by certified
mechanics with decades of experience. That aint REALITY, pal. Most
computer users wouldn't have the skills necessary to solve this SP2 problem
themselves. That does not make them brain dead. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

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

How many mainboards have a BIOS that does not support the processor it's
spec'd to run? If they exist, you wouldn't be installing SP2 on that
system, as the damn thing wouldn't boot to start with. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

False premise.

The systems were not 'perfectly working' beforehand.

You are simply talking out of your ass, now. The only way they are not
"perfectly working" is that they were not "perfectly working" to David
Maynard's standards. But guess what . . . you don't own most computers in
the world, and according to most computer owners, their systems work
perfectly, thank you very much. That is, some of them DID work perfectly
before SP2 was installed. -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

But your definition of a proper BIOS conflicts with reality.

That's just plain silly. There's no 'conflict with reality' in expecting
the mainboard manufacturer to use the proper microcode.

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?

Having the proper microcode is not a 'brand' issue. It's a works the way
it's supposed to work issue.

And I for damn sure care if they're the right TYPE of spark plugs for the car.

What YOU want is the ignition system to cover up that they're the wrong
kind of spark plug, potentially damaging the engine, so you can pretend
there's nothing wrong because you haven't 'noticed' a problem... yet.

Well, you probably do, but nobody else would. -Dave

Actually, you have that backwards. It's the less technical who take solace
in buying the recommended 'brand' because they have little else to base the
decision on.

 

[Dave C.]

You say SP2 does not conflict with XP. Technically, you are

Glad we got that cleared up.


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

How do you explain color to a blind person? I can see this issue from both
sides. If someone wants a technical explanation, I can give it to them. In
many cases, that won't be very helpful, though. If someone asks me if they
should install SP2, I would advise them to wait a while. Period. Why
confuse the issue by going into great lengths about improper microcode and
such that means nothing to 99.99% of the computer using population? At the
same time, I know the dangers of a failed BIOS flash, so that's not an issue
I would bring up unless there was a real need to. Without SP2, there is no
real need for a BIOS flash. You want to help people, you've got to learn to
give them enough information to be helpful without confusing the heck out of
them, which will do more harm than good. The average computer user doesn't
speak our language, and neither should we, when communicating with the
average computer user. I know all that probably went right over your head,
but oh well, I tried. -Dave

 

[Dave C.]

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

B, since A is impossible.

How hard would it be for Microsoft to program windows update to check for
the proper microcode before installing SP2? Aw hell, you're going to argue
with me now just because you CAN, aren't you? -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

Simple question . . . how hard would it be for Microsoft to program Windows
Update to check for the proper microcode before installing SP2 on a system
where SP2 will cause windows not to boot?

I don't know, for sure, and I'll bet you don't either.

I have, however, wondered what it would take to do that.

Now how many programmers does
Microsoft employ? How many of them would it take to make this simple
change?

You presume things not in evidence: for one, that it's 'simple'.

 

[David Maynard]

And you would apparently prefer that cars are only driven by certified
mechanics with decades of experience.

I never said any such thing and, in fact, said precisely the opposite: that
minimal 'life skills' include being able to find someone who can fix it;
not that all drivers need be 'mechanics'.

That aint REALITY, pal.

That was your alternate reality invention, not mine.

Most
computer users wouldn't have the skills necessary to solve this SP2 problem
themselves.

Actually, they do; if they can read and follow simple step by step
instructions.

That does not make them brain dead.

I didn't say that either. I said YOUR criteria for 'problems' is that they
should be 'intuitive' and 'easily solvable' by the brain dead. And I said
the 'brain dead' because you and mamma keep insisting that the typical user
is so clueless they don't even know how to find help in ANY manner, ANY
way, ANY how. Apparently you two think they just sit there for the rest of
their lives flat line gaping at a boot hung computer screen.

 

[Conor]

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

There have been plenty of examples of newer revisions of cars that have
been released that have introduced problems such as steering arms which
ultimately have survived the warranty period but then need changing
every 30,000 miles unlike the old ones that did 50,000 miles.

 

[Conor]

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

If I've got work that is so urgent it needs to be done immediately I
take the course of action that results in it being fixed the quickest
even if its not the cheapest.

 

[Conor]

Let me get this straight. Microsoft releases software that breaks perfectly
working systems. Mainboard manufacturers are guilty of having improper
microcode in the latest BIOS version of some of their systems. The end
result of these two things happening is that many systems become unusable
after SP2 is installed. You think the average computer user should have to
pay a professional to fix a problem that shouldn't exist? **** that, I say
send the bill to Microsoft. 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. That is, it's a lot easier to fix SP2 than it is to force dozens
of mainboard manufacturers to fix their BIOS and then somehow force millions
of mainboard owners to update it and risk damaging their mainboard in the
process. That's why I say send the bill to Microsoft.

Then you're an idiot. Just how many millions of possible combinations
of hardware in a PC do you think there is? Windows has to work with as
many as possible.

Sorry but what you're asking for is an impossibility for PCs. I suggest
you buy a MAC where the OS creator has complete control over the
hardware in the computer.

 

[Conor]

You are simply talking out of your ass, now. The only way they are not
"perfectly working" is that they were not "perfectly working" to David
Maynard's standards. But guess what . . . you don't own most computers in
the world, and according to most computer owners, their systems work
perfectly, thank you very much. That is, some of them DID work perfectly
before SP2 was installed. -Dave

You've not been into computing long have you?

 

[David Maynard]

How many mainboards have a BIOS that does not support the processor it's
spec'd to run?

I don't know. But there are apparently some with Prescotts or Celeron Ds in
them or else we wouldn't be talking about it.

If they exist, you wouldn't be installing SP2 on that
system, as the damn thing wouldn't boot to start with.

Not true. It's only a specific stepping of Prescott and Celeron D that has
the problem, or at least those are the only ones identified so far.

 

[Conor]

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)

It involves manufacturers actually sorting the job out properly and it
would take each manufacturer very little time. OTOH option A would mean
many thousands of hours re-writing code to accommodate ****ed up
BIOSes.

Basically taking option A is like having to re-designing highways so
that blind people can drive cars on them.

 

[Bioboffin]

There have been plenty of examples of newer revisions of cars that have
been released that have introduced problems such as steering arms which
ultimately have survived the warranty period but then need changing
every 30,000 miles unlike the old ones that did 50,000 miles.


--

The steering arms on my Chrysler PT cruiser recently needed replacing just
before the 3-year warranty period expires. However I still like it because
the *front end* looks good, I can get into it without getting a bad back
(I'm not as young as I used to be), and it probably just about goes faster
than Conor's lorry. And I intend to trade it in in the next year.

;-)

John.
(previously Mr E)

 

[Conor]

How hard would it be for Microsoft to program windows update to check for
the proper microcode before installing SP2? Aw hell, you're going to argue
with me now just because you CAN, aren't you? -Dave

How much would you be willing to pay for Windows?

 

[Conor]

Then you start
an uninstall of SP2 which is supposed to take several hours in Microsoft
hours. (yikes)

ROFLMAO..clueless.

 

[Conor]

Simple question . . . how hard would it be for Microsoft to program Windows
Update to check for the proper microcode before installing SP2 on a system
where SP2 will cause windows not to boot? Now how many programmers does
Microsoft employ? How many of them would it take to make this simple
change? -Dave

Here speaks someone with no clue of how Windows is put together. Teams
are assigned to specific parts of Windows. The team dealing with
motherboard resources may only have one or two people in it.

 

[Conor]

And you would apparently prefer that cars are only driven by certified
mechanics with decades of experience. That aint REALITY, pal. Most
computer users wouldn't have the skills necessary to solve this SP2 problem
themselves. That does not make them brain dead. -Dave

But it does mean that if you haven't the knowledge to fix the problem
you take it to someone who does.