***** sp2 bREAKS eVERYTHING!!!!! *****

[Edward W. Thompson]

Machines such as Computers and the Software that runs on them are no
different to other sophisticated devices and require the Owner to take time
to understand them and be able to do certain basic tasks. IT is surprising
to me that these machines have progressed to a point where most people with
a very small effort can operate and maintain their equipment and its
software. If you don't have the time to or inclination to educate yourself
so you can maintain your machine, why do you think anyone here should want
to help you, most of us work hard too?

I wonder if you bothered to learn how to drive an auto, perhaps you didn't,
maybe you use cabs , but I doubt it.

 

[Greg R]

Machines such as Computers and the Software that runs on them are no
different to other sophisticated devices and require the Owner to take time
to understand them and be able to do certain basic tasks. IT is surprising
to me that these machines have progressed to a point where most people with
a very small effort can operate and maintain their equipment and its
software. If you don't have the time to or inclination to educate yourself
so you can maintain your machine, why do you think anyone here should want
to help you, most of us work hard too?

I wonder if you bothered to learn how to drive an auto, perhaps you didn't,
maybe you use cabs , but I doubt it.

My grandparents don't know how to use a computer. They don't even own
one. Not everyone smart as you. I know a person who needs step by
step instructions to use the computer. However, once this person
learn how- this person no longer needs help


Jax2, if you can read other post in this group
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
It will tell where you can download it and how to use automatic update


On my website I have some installation instructions.


Greg R
snipped
http://www.angelfire.com/in4/computertips/

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:27:02 -0700, "Jax2"

Too many sites require pop-ups to function properly. I work hard
and do not have time to reconfigure programs, sites, etc... to
allow that site to operate correctly with XP

Look at the big picture, and rephrase your first line as "too many
sites rely on features that are too dangerous to be left open".

Sure, this is the result of imprudent design decisions of the past;
not just MS, but the industry as a whole. MS and IE were competing,
and a way of attracting site lock-in ("Best viewed with IE") was to
offer web site developers features that would let them run roughshod
all over the visitor's system.

Then when the DoJ case looked as if it was going to demand ripping IE
out of Windows, the defense was "it's not a stand-alone bundled app,
it's part of Windows". So even as IE 5 was cut loose from IE 4's
"Desktop Integration", OS and IE were mingled in Win98.

So now it's even easier for HTML to rip into the OS, and harder to rip
MS's HTML parsing out of the OS.

By now, commercial malware is ripping into the OS through IE to such
an extent that there's a groundswell of users choosing Mozilla,
Netscape etc. because they offer *less* functionality - i.e. they
don't offer the same opportunities to scumbags who want to integrate
into the browser as a BHO, or auto-install junk, etc.

So SP2 aims to stuff Pandora back in the box, and it's not easy,
because by now Pandora's bloated on the fat of the land.

So yes, SP2 is going to stuff up sites that demand the right to crawl
all over you. Such sites can lose trade from users like yourself who
don't care to expend the effort needed to give them what they demand,
and hopefully these wretched sites will die out - and good riddance!

We might just end up with a cleaner 'net that respects visitor's
rights better, just as if the whole IE4 nightmare had never happened.

But to get there from here, we WILL have to go through some pain, such
as apps and sites written for last year's hunting season that now have

because Microsoft developed a poorly written operating system with flaws

SP2 is part of the painful U-turn on those flaws. It's ungainly to
watch, but I for one prefer to see MS headed in the right direction.

-------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

"I think it's time we took our
friendship to the next level"
'What, gender roles and abuse?'

 

[Bob Eyster]

OK, here is a dumb question! What is a "Prescott's"


Bob Eyster

 

[Barry Watzman]

"Prescott" is the latest (3rd) internal core design of Intel Pentium 4
processors [the 1st was Willamette, the 2nd, still being sold, was
Northwood]. Prescott is relatively new, and is most easily evidenced by
an 800 MHz front side bus (but some 800 MHz FSB processors are Northwoods).

There is a problem with SP2 and some motherboards that have Prescott
processors installed on them. The problem isn't actually SP2 per se, or
Prescott CPUs either, but that the BIOS' on the motherboards in question
have an old version of the Intel Pentium 4 microcode. Intel had
released fixed microcode some time (months) ago. But both because not
all motherboard makers put out new BIOS', and/or because not all
computer owners keep the latest BIOS version installed on their
computers, there are, in fact, a lot of people having problems with the
combination of SP2 and Prescott processors.

The fix is go into the BIOS setup program and disable all cache memory
on the CPU chip, which will allow the system to boot and run (slowly).
Then boot up, download the latest BIOS, install it, turn cache memory
back on and reboot. An obvious requirement here is that the motherboard
maker has released a BIOS for the motherboard in question that contains
the SP2 compatible version of the Pentium 4 microcode. This will
generally be the case, but there may be cases in which it's not.

 

[Dick Kistler]

OK, here is a dumb question! What is a "Prescott's"


Bob Eyster

Look here: http://cquirke.mvps.org/sp2intel.htm

To find out what a Prescott processor is, what the problem is,
and what to do about it.

Dick Kistler

 

[Ron Reaugh]

"Prescott" is the latest (3rd) internal core design of Intel Pentium 4
processors [the 1st was Willamette, the 2nd, still being sold, was
Northwood]. Prescott is relatively new, and is most easily evidenced by
an 800 MHz front side bus (but some 800 MHz FSB processors are Northwoods).

There is a problem with SP2 and some motherboards that have Prescott
processors installed on them. The problem isn't actually SP2 per se, or
Prescott CPUs either, but that the BIOS' on the motherboards in question
have an old version of the Intel Pentium 4 microcode. Intel had
released fixed microcode some time (months) ago. But both because not
all motherboard makers put out new BIOS', and/or because not all
computer owners keep the latest BIOS version installed on their
computers, there are, in fact, a lot of people having problems with the
combination of SP2 and Prescott processors.

The fix is go into the BIOS setup program and disable all cache memory
on the CPU chip, which will allow the system to boot and run (slowly).

Well no, the original fix/workaround was to RENAME update.sys at this point
as workable new BIOS microcode may not yet be available for many 865/875
chipset
mobos.

Rather than us all frantically waiting for new BIOSs with recent Prescott
microcode, WHY aren't we all waiting frantically for MS to release a hotfix
of update.sys with the appropriate Prescott microcode??? THAT is what is
apparently BROKEN as SP2 will boot and run with NO or very old BIOS
Prescott microcode. That assertion is apparently proven by the original
workaround of renaming update.sys

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Also, it isn't the 800 MHz FSB that sets the Prescott apart. It is the
90 nanometer fabrication process, the extended pipeline, and the
increase On-Die Cache. These processors now have a 1 MB L2 cache
instead of the 512k Cache that the Northwoods had. Here is an awesome
overview of the different cores:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

----
Nathan McNulty

"Prescott" is the latest (3rd) internal core design of Intel Pentium 4
processors [the 1st was Willamette, the 2nd, still being sold, was
Northwood]. Prescott is relatively new, and is most easily evidenced by
an 800 MHz front side bus (but some 800 MHz FSB processors are
Northwoods).

There is a problem with SP2 and some motherboards that have Prescott
processors installed on them. The problem isn't actually SP2 per se, or
Prescott CPUs either, but that the BIOS' on the motherboards in question
have an old version of the Intel Pentium 4 microcode. Intel had
released fixed microcode some time (months) ago. But both because not
all motherboard makers put out new BIOS', and/or because not all
computer owners keep the latest BIOS version installed on their
computers, there are, in fact, a lot of people having problems with the
combination of SP2 and Prescott processors.

The fix is go into the BIOS setup program and disable all cache memory
on the CPU chip, which will allow the system to boot and run (slowly).

Well no, the original fix/workaround was to RENAME update.sys at this point
as workable new BIOS microcode may not yet be available for many 865/875
chipset
mobos.

Rather than us all frantically waiting for new BIOSs with recent Prescott
microcode, WHY aren't we all waiting frantically for MS to release a hotfix
of update.sys with the appropriate Prescott microcode??? THAT is what is
apparently BROKEN as SP2 will boot and run with NO or very old BIOS
Prescott microcode. That assertion is apparently proven by the original
workaround of renaming update.sys

 

[Bob Eyster]

Thanks for all the replies. Now how can you tell which one you have. I know
it isn't the Prescott. So it's a toss up between the Williamette and
Northwood, leaning towards Northwood.

I have a P4 3.2 GHz with HT. Not sure of the FSB.

Again thanks for the replies.

Bob Eyster

"Prescott" is the latest (3rd) internal core design of Intel Pentium 4
processors [the 1st was Willamette, the 2nd, still being sold, was
Northwood]. Prescott is relatively new, and is most easily evidenced by
an 800 MHz front side bus (but some 800 MHz FSB processors are
Northwoods).

There is a problem with SP2 and some motherboards that have Prescott
processors installed on them. The problem isn't actually SP2 per se, or
Prescott CPUs either, but that the BIOS' on the motherboards in question
have an old version of the Intel Pentium 4 microcode. Intel had released
fixed microcode some time (months) ago. But both because not all
motherboard makers put out new BIOS', and/or because not all computer
owners keep the latest BIOS version installed on their computers, there
are, in fact, a lot of people having problems with the combination of SP2
and Prescott processors.

The fix is go into the BIOS setup program and disable all cache memory on
the CPU chip, which will allow the system to boot and run (slowly). Then
boot up, download the latest BIOS, install it, turn cache memory back on
and reboot. An obvious requirement here is that the motherboard maker has
released a BIOS for the motherboard in question that contains the SP2
compatible version of the Pentium 4 microcode. This will generally be the
case, but there may be cases in which it's not.

OK, here is a dumb question! What is a "Prescott's"


Bob Eyster

 

[R. McCarty]

Intel offers a tool that for Processor Frequency testing and in the
tool is an CPUID option that will show processor specifics in the
Processor Classification fields (You'll have to cross reference)
The fields will be CPU Type, Family, Model, Stepping & Revision.

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/tools/frequencyid/sb/CS-007620.htm

Thanks for all the replies. Now how can you tell which one you have. I
know it isn't the Prescott. So it's a toss up between the Williamette and
Northwood, leaning towards Northwood.

I have a P4 3.2 GHz with HT. Not sure of the FSB.

Again thanks for the replies.

Bob Eyster

"Prescott" is the latest (3rd) internal core design of Intel Pentium 4
processors [the 1st was Willamette, the 2nd, still being sold, was
Northwood]. Prescott is relatively new, and is most easily evidenced by
an 800 MHz front side bus (but some 800 MHz FSB processors are
Northwoods).

There is a problem with SP2 and some motherboards that have Prescott
processors installed on them. The problem isn't actually SP2 per se, or
Prescott CPUs either, but that the BIOS' on the motherboards in question
have an old version of the Intel Pentium 4 microcode. Intel had released
fixed microcode some time (months) ago. But both because not all
motherboard makers put out new BIOS', and/or because not all computer
owners keep the latest BIOS version installed on their computers, there
are, in fact, a lot of people having problems with the combination of SP2
and Prescott processors.

The fix is go into the BIOS setup program and disable all cache memory on
the CPU chip, which will allow the system to boot and run (slowly). Then
boot up, download the latest BIOS, install it, turn cache memory back on
and reboot. An obvious requirement here is that the motherboard maker
has released a BIOS for the motherboard in question that contains the SP2
compatible version of the Pentium 4 microcode. This will generally be
the case, but there may be cases in which it's not.

OK, here is a dumb question! What is a "Prescott's"


Bob Eyster



"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message

Both were on Prescotts, with the caches enabled. What revision number
is the mobo you are using? If it is an early revision, it may have
issues with Prescotts.

Bobby


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:56:26 -1000, "NoNoBadDog!"


I have installed SP2 on two....an 865 based laptop and an 875 based
desktop.... Both installations went seamlessly and the machines have
thus far exhibited no issues.

What processors?


Have you made sure that you have the latest BIOS and chipset drivers
for
your mobo?

Yes; the mobo had a July 2004 BIOS update to handle Prescott. Before
that, it worked, other than exiting CMOS after saving changes would
save changes and then lock up.

There are no newer BIOS updates for the mobo; I checked today, in case
there was a "use this for SP2" update.

Then again, consider; an OS is supposed to work on the hardware as the
hardware is. Once the hardware has to have special changes for the
benefit of one particular OS, it's rolling down a slippery slope from
being an OS-agnostic platform to a Windows-only toy.

After about 4-5 hours, I've got my PC back to life. It took that long
to run XP and uninstall SP2, once L1 and L2 cache were disabled.
Disabling these caches was the only way to get back in.




------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Our senses are our UI to reality

------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Amy Gere]

There is a patch that can fix this. See
http://on-disk.com/product_info.php/products_id/35


Cheers!
Amy

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

At the very least, post what it is. Are Linux fans so hard up for new
adherents that they can't at least abide by truth in advertising.

This is not a patch, it fixes nothing, it is a completely separate operating
system and if you install without realizing this, you might wipe out your
current setup.

Amy, there's nothing wrong with making such a recommendation but what you
did was irresponsible.

 

[Dick Kistler]

At the very least, post what it is. Are Linux fans so hard up for new
adherents that they can't at least abide by truth in advertising.

That website is perfectly clear about what it offers. The difference is that
Linux newsgroups would have no problem ignoring incoherent posts.

This is not a patch, it fixes nothing, it is a completely separate
operating system and if you install without realizing this, you might
wipe out your current setup.

If the OP can't figure out what the website says, he or she deserves the
consequences!
Otherwise he should look out for the darwin awards.

Amy, there's nothing wrong with making such a recommendation but what
you did was irresponsible.

It sounded to me from the post that I saw that the OP would consider other
Operating Systems than Windows, since he is clearly unhappy with Windows and
Microsoft. Amy appears to be showing him such an option.

Dick Kistler

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Bull, the link was posted in such a way as to give the impression this fixes
something, it doesn't. I realize you may live inside your PC as many of us
do and stay current with all technologies but a lot of people only come here
when they have a problem and have no notion of Linux. Stupidity is not the
factor here, the post was designed to take advantage of those who are
unaware, ignorant of such facts and unwary of people such as this who would
rather see people dig themselves into greater trouble then be honest with
them.

 

[Robert E. Wijnberg]

At the very least, post what it is. Are Linux fans so hard up for new
adherents that they can't at least abide by truth in advertising.

This is not a patch, it fixes nothing, it is a completely separate
operating system and if you install without realizing this, you might
wipe out your current setup.

Said this, I wonder why they called this a *service pack*.
MS is using the user community as their free test lab.
What has this post to do with Linux?
I'm using both and I've never seen these kind of problems on Linux systems.


..

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

First, SP2 was thoroughly tested across a very wide test bed, Given all the
different hardware configurations plus all those with self-built systems
combined with those who never check for updated drivers and updates for
applications or assume all of that comes through Windows Update, it's
amazing the wide level of compatibility they are able to reach with any such
update not to mention new versions of the operating system.

I have no doubts about Linux reliability, it is renown for such stability.

That said, it's not for the faint of heart, it's not for the novice, in
fact, it really isn't for most users at this time. The point is, sending
people off to something like this without telling them the truth about what
the site is and what such download is, is irresponsible.

As to what the post has to do with Linux, the OP posted a link implying it
was a fix for problems others were having with the service pack. It was in
fact a link to a Linux download and I thought people should know precisely
what it is. No matter how good Linux may be, it is irresponsible to send
people under such false pretenses off to a site where they might download
and execute something that runs the risk of hosing their setup and making
things much worse for them than is already the case.

It has nothing to do with how good Linux is or even a comparative of Linux
versus Windows and everything to do with sending people off to unwittingly
do something that might make matters worse for them.

 

[Dick Kistler]

First, SP2 was thoroughly tested across a very wide test bed, Given
all the different hardware configurations plus all those with
self-built systems combined with those who never check for updated
drivers and updates for applications or assume all of that comes
through Windows Update, it's amazing the wide level of compatibility
they are able to reach with any such update not to mention new
versions of the operating system.
I have no doubts about Linux reliability, it is renown for such
stability.
That said, it's not for the faint of heart, it's not for the novice,
in fact, it really isn't for most users at this time. The point is,
sending people off to something like this without telling them the
truth about what the site is and what such download is, is
irresponsible.
As to what the post has to do with Linux, the OP posted a link
implying it was a fix for problems others were having with the
service pack. It was in fact a link to a Linux download and I
thought people should know precisely what it is. No matter how good
Linux may be, it is irresponsible to send people under such false
pretenses off to a site where they might download and execute
something that runs the risk of hosing their setup and making things
much worse for them than is already the case.
It has nothing to do with how good Linux is or even a comparative of
Linux versus Windows and everything to do with sending people off to
unwittingly do something that might make matters worse for them.

Again, the site is perfectly clear as to what it is. If you construe from
the incoherent post of the OP that his problem is with Windows itself
suggesting a new OS is perfectly reasonable. It is entirely possible
that a Linux install would go much better than his experience with
SP2. I can't see the problem. It's just that I don't see Windows as
the only solution to all problems. Besides, I don't know from the OP's
post what his question is, and this may actually be the right answer
for him.

If the OP is clueless enough to unwittingly blow his Windows install away,
he will have learned a valuable lesson. Maybe this would be important
to him in the long run. My opinion is that you can't protect the clueless
if they insist on remaining clueless. But my guess is that the OP has
figured
out what is going on, and is not as dumb as you assume him to be.


Fedora Core 2- NVidia drivers, Lucent Winmodem drivers, etc.

This kind of thing happens so often in Linux that we don't even notice it
any more.
Linux and its applications change so quickly that we see the SP2 problem
every
time we update. Or at least I do. Maybe there is some advantage in this.
However,
Linux developers are continually using their users as a "test lab." It's the
only
way that the OS can advance.

The truth of the matter is that as time goes on, OS's grow and change. This
can happen
in big lumps, like SP2, with lots of pain, or in small lumps, like Linux,
being pecked to death
by ducks. The clueless are ill equiped for either scenario, and will have
massive difficulty
coping with either if they insist on remaining clueless..

Dick Kistler

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

It doesn't matter, I've accomplished what I set out to do which was to
provide information and warn others. I've already praised Linux, I'm not
going to get into a subjective discussion about the relative merits or a
comparison. I just wanted people to have more information then was given in
the OP that caused my initial response and I've accomplished that.

 

[gls858]

Again, the site is perfectly clear as to what it is. If you construe from
the incoherent post of the OP that his problem is with Windows itself
suggesting a new OS is perfectly reasonable. It is entirely possible
that a Linux install would go much better than his experience with
SP2. I can't see the problem. It's just that I don't see Windows as
the only solution to all problems. Besides, I don't know from the OP's
post what his question is, and this may actually be the right answer
for him.

If the OP is clueless enough to unwittingly blow his Windows install away,
he will have learned a valuable lesson. Maybe this would be important
to him in the long run. My opinion is that you can't protect the clueless
if they insist on remaining clueless. But my guess is that the OP has
figured
out what is going on, and is not as dumb as you assume him to be.





Fedora Core 2- NVidia drivers, Lucent Winmodem drivers, etc.

This kind of thing happens so often in Linux that we don't even notice it
any more.
Linux and its applications change so quickly that we see the SP2 problem
every
time we update. Or at least I do. Maybe there is some advantage in this.
However,
Linux developers are continually using their users as a "test lab." It's the
only
way that the OS can advance.

The truth of the matter is that as time goes on, OS's grow and change. This
can happen
in big lumps, like SP2, with lots of pain, or in small lumps, like Linux,
being pecked to death
by ducks. The clueless are ill equiped for either scenario, and will have
massive difficulty
coping with either if they insist on remaining clueless..

Dick Kistler

Actually the OP didn't ask a question at all.
original post follows:

dON'T INSTALL SP2! i HAVEAND NOW MY COMPUTER CAN'T TALK
TO TOHER PC'SANYMORE HERE AT HOME, AND IT COMPLAINS ABOUT
FIREWALL ANF ANTIVIRUS. cANT ACCESS VARUOIS WEBPAGES AND
EVEN THE WAY MY COMPUTER LOOKS WHEN IT IS STARTING UP IS
DIFFERENT!!! yOU WOULD BE WELL WARRNED TO STAY AWAY!!!

It amazes me that a post like this can generate a thread this long
(as I add to it)


gls858

 

[Dick Kistler]

Actually the OP didn't ask a question at all.
original post follows:

dON'T INSTALL SP2! i HAVEAND NOW MY COMPUTER CAN'T TALK
TO TOHER PC'SANYMORE HERE AT HOME, AND IT COMPLAINS ABOUT
FIREWALL ANF ANTIVIRUS. cANT ACCESS VARUOIS WEBPAGES AND
EVEN THE WAY MY COMPUTER LOOKS WHEN IT IS STARTING UP IS
DIFFERENT!!! yOU WOULD BE WELL WARRNED TO STAY AWAY!!!

It amazes me that a post like this can generate a thread this long
(as I add to it)

Yup, and maybe if he had asked a question it would have been:

"How do I fix my caps lock key?"

Dick Kistler