SP2 Not a Problem; it's a Learning Curve

[Sandman]

O.K. Since reading your response to this lady, i am going out and buy a
toaster and a microwave! learning curve is zero......you said.
Forget the PC; Windows based anyway... I am buying a Linux microwave, to
hell with it..
besides, many people didn't have the time to READ all about the problems
they would have with this BEFORE auto updates loaded it, they thought since
it was from Microsoft, it was pure as the driven snow...
IF they had waited and taken the time to learn that it was going to be a
hassle, maybe they wouldn't have bothered with it at all.
Aside from all that you MVPs are all simply apologists for microsofts' buggy
patch.. I am still going to buy a Red Hat Toaster and a Mozilla
Microwave!.........maybe a FireFox Blender too.

 

[Sandman]

u seem to scoff at the learning curve.
Can you name anything at all with a degree of complexity that has no
learning curve?
Once you determine that, perhaps you can help Microsoft to eliminate
the necessary learning curve with an update such as SP-2.

The average PC user doesn't wanna fool with all this techi stuff;
they want the PC to work, period..not one of these people (i bet) thought
that a 'fix' from Microsoft would involve them getting involved in disabling
features and re-install of drivers , software versions, etc!
Once again, you are apologizing for Microsoft........ a patch of this
magnitude is NOT to be tackled lightly and the average PC user hasn't a clue
what to do, but like a good trusting customer, downloaded this to find he
has to actually 'learn' something about infra structure, .dll and cab ,
drivers , why his HD has disappeared from My Computer, why he suddenly can't
access his USB PenDrive or his USB ports, what a black screen monitor means
etc etc...
You seem to be ignoring what would seem to be a fact and not responding to
it here; Most people don't wanna know anything about troubleshooting this
beta, they simply want it to work....They have, in the past, downloaded
'Hotfixes' from WU site and most have been fine; fixing stuff in the
background..
BIG SURPRISE folks.. You are gonna have to do some homework and maybe buy a
whole new machine, according to one suggestion I read here...
My guess is you do know a great deal about computers, and very little about
people. The 'average' PCconsumer..

 

[Chris]

Funny that in another post you state "I have 5 (not 28)
computers in my home...different makes, models, processors, etc. I have
installed SP2 on all of them , and had one minor issue with a NIC card that
.... "
Which is it????
Seems to be some inconsistency in what you say.

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

I have 5 at home, 23 at work that I am responsible for maintaining. In the
first post, I had only installed SP2 on my home computers. In later posts,
I had installed Sp2 on the 23 at work. No inconsistency at all.

Bobby

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The amount of learning necessary is largely determined by how they get
and what they do with their computer.
See my post to Michael.

Also even more important is learning to properly maintain the
computer.
Many have not gotten that far as is still evidenced by the Blaster
posts still regularly coming in.
Many issues including Blaster, Sasser and more would be non issues if
more learned to properly maintain the computer.

Whether people like it or not, they need to learn a fair amount or
they must accept the substandard performance of the insecure systems
they already have.

Other assumptions of yours are just plain wrong.

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

There is no way at all Microsoft could test all possible
configurations.
There is a large number of Windows XP computers in the world and no
two identical.
Unfortunately the best way to insure a flawless installation of SP-2
is from the original configuration of the computer, hardware and
software.
That would mean a Clean Installation of Windows XP immediately before
installing a Service Pack.
Since that is not practical, there was extensive testing on a wide
range of configurations.

"I have not had to patch our RS/6000..." Or just have not?
What is the need to patch based?

Microsoft has done a great deal to inform users of possible issues in
advance, some is on this link:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm

As far as "certified" hardware, Microsoft already has the Hardware
Compatibility List:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx?gssnb=1

OEMs take care of their own compatibility issues.
However when we build our own or change from original we often do not
follow the HCL.
Not all manufacturers follow the requirements or pay for the extensive
testing necessary to be added to the HCL.

How much is someone expected to do?
That depends on many factors.
If they bought an OEM computer and kept it original, there is little
they need to do.
The more they change from original the more they may need to do when
it comes time for an update.
If you built your own, that research may be a great deal.

If the computer is running fine before the installation of SP2 one would
reasonably expect it to continue running fine after the installation.
The Service Pack should NOT break anything, unfortunately that is not
Microsoft's way. I have used Microsoft OSes since MSDOS 3.1 and every
time they did an upgrade (which SP2 qualifies as) I have had to upgrade
numerous other programs and drivers to get everything working again.
In the beginning this was expected as a lot of the upgrades were true
upgrades that added new functionality to the OS. But SP2 does Not add
any new functionality (other than changing the way some of the security
toys work) and still manages to break a lot of "working" drivers and
programs, including there own. They should have made the fixes separate
from the changes and let the users know what they do, what they have
been tested to work with, and any known problems. This disclosure
should be part of the installation, not afterwards like it has been for
the last 20 years.

 

[Ted Zieglar aka Rocky]

"This disclosure should be part of the installation, not afterwards..."

Even better, how about before the installation:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

What's your next excuse?

Ted Zieglar

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

"This disclosure should be part of the installation, not afterwards..."

Even better, how about before the installation:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

And this is part of the SP2 installation??? I do not want to have to
spend weeks looking for the information. When my computer asked if it
wanted me to download SP2 this page was not displayed, nor were any
warnings of what may happen.
In my case the download seems to have failed so I don't know what it may
break on my computer yet. As major companies such as IBM have decided
not to "upgrade" I will probably wait for the fallout to finish, but
most users will not, nor will they know that there might be problems
with the Service Pack until it is too late.
I would prefer to just download the fixes that patch problems with XP
rather than have to also "upgrade" the OS with no say in the matter.

 

[Guest]

"... Red Hat Toaster and a Mozilla Microwave!.........maybe a FireFox Blender
too. ..."


You are GOOD!

 

[Little Neddie]

Once upon a time my grandmother bought a shiny new car. It was safe,
comfortable and easy to drive, and she enjoyed driving it — until one of the
local bad boys discovered that he could disable every car like hers by
poking a stick through a hole that he'd found in the bodywork. The
manufacturer promptly gave her a free Security Package containing a BandAid
with which to plug the hole, and she was able to drive once more.

However, it wasn't long before the bad boy and his unpleasant friends were
finding holes all over the bodywork, and the manufacturer had to pay his
staff overtime just to dish out free BandAids, which my granny had to
remember to collect and stick on as they became available.

Finally the manufacturer, who couldn't send out BandAids fast enough to keep
the bad boys at bay, offered my granny a free Xtra-Powerful Second Plaster,
or XPSP2, which amounted to nothing less than a complete replacement body
with no holes in it (or so the manufacturer said) and which would even toot
a tooter when there were bad boys around. Best of all, this entire new body
was designed to fit neatly in one piece over the old one at the press of a
button.

" Wonderful," said my granny. "Clearly this is meant for folk just like me."

Sadly the old lady found that, far from solving all known and future
problems, XPSP2 broke her car. (Admittedly, some bits of the vehicle hadn't
been terribly well maintained and may have failed under the sheer weight of
the new body, but my granny is a very old lady and had done her best.) Also
the manufacturer's agents didn't improve matters by telling her to quit
whining. They said that she really ought to be very grateful. They told her
that XPSP2 was a fine product, and that any problems must be her own fault
because she should have checked the tyre pressures, replaced the fuel pump
and inspected the exhaust system for holes before she pressed the button to
install the package.

My granny doesn't know how to do any of these things and can't understand
why the manufacturer expects her to. She says Hotpoint doesn't expect her to
fix her fridge.

 

[Ted Zieglar aka \Rocky\]

Anyone who can't appreciate the difference between a computer and a fridge
shouldn't be using a computer.

 

[Little Neddie]

Anyone who can't appreciate the difference between a computer and a fridge
shouldn't be using a computer.

....or a fridge, presumably.

I shall confiscate Granny's machine immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Z - and if there's a prize for Arrogant Non Sequitur of the
Month, you have my vote.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:16:49 -0400, "Ted Zieglar aka Rocky"

"This disclosure should be part of the installation, not afterwards..."

Even better, how about before the installation:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx
What's your next excuse?

There's no warning on Prescott vs. SP2 at that URL, or the PC
Manufacturer's page off that, or off "before you start".

Truth is, some issues were not known at the time of RTM.

So we (as advisors) cannot afford the luxury of "blame the victim"
here. Yes, known issues were well documented, but there are issues
other that those that were known, and they can have nasty results.

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

Certainty may be your biggest weakness

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

Can you name anything at all with a degree of complexity that has no
learning curve? Once you determine that, perhaps you can help
Microsoft to eliminate the necessary curve with an update such as SP-2.

SP2's ambitious, and on that, MS is damned both ways.

In this thread, one may criticise MS for being too ambitious, i.e.
maybe we wished they'd left out stuff like DirectX 9c, NX etc.

In another thread, MS will be slagged off for not being ambitious
enough, e.g. not adding pre-application egress filtering in the
firewall and staffing the support lines to deal with all those "it
says XYZ wants to connect to the Internet, what should I do?"

The average PC user doesn't wanna fool with all this techi stuff;
they want the PC to work, period..not one of these people (i bet) thought
that a 'fix' from Microsoft would involve them getting involved in disabling
features and re-install of drivers , software versions, etc!

XP was aimed at making the PC easy to use.
XP SP2 is aimed at making the PC easy to use safely.

The difference is significant, and will mean that some apps that pull
unsafe moves are going to get caught out and tripped up. To be fair
to some of those apps, they are doing things that MS encouraged them
to doo, at least until the SP2 beta became visible to developers.

BIG SURPRISE folks.. You are gonna have to do some homework and maybe buy a
whole new machine, according to one suggestion I read here...

Erm, if it's an Intel processor, make sure the BIOS is *really*
Prescott-aware (http://cquirke.mvps.org/sp2intek.htm)


The thing about SP2 is that, as an NT SP, it has to set a new OS
baseline. That's why it includes stuff like new WMP and DirectX
versions; so that when the time rolls around to sunset SP1 support, MS
doesn't have to worry about older versions of these.

SP2 will in time become the new baseline product on CD; get a new PC
with Windows XP, and your CD will be SP2.

The downside is that installing SP2 on an existing installation is
very like installing a new OS over an old one, in terms of risk.
That's something that MS has sometimes shied away from completely,
e.g. WIn95 SR2 over older Win95.

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

The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope

 

[Ron Reaugh]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:16:49 -0400, "Ted Zieglar aka Rocky"



There's no warning on Prescott vs. SP2 at that URL, or the PC
Manufacturer's page off that, or off "before you start".

Truth is, some issues were not known at the time of RTM.

Probably right HOWEVER the Prescott+SP2 issue was known in June under RC2.

So we (as advisors) cannot afford the luxury of "blame the victim"
here. Yes, known issues were well documented,

Not in this case.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

SP2's ambitious, and on that, MS is damned both ways.

SP2 works very well indeed for a great majority of users.

In this thread, one may criticise MS for being too ambitious, i.e.
maybe we wished they'd left out stuff like DirectX 9c, NX etc.

In another thread, MS will be slagged off for not being ambitious
enough, e.g. not adding pre-application egress filtering in the
firewall and staffing the support lines to deal with all those "it
says XYZ wants to connect to the Internet, what should I do?"


XP was aimed at making the PC easy to use.
XP SP2 is aimed at making the PC easy to use safely.

The difference is significant, and will mean that some apps that pull
unsafe moves are going to get caught out and tripped up. To be fair
to some of those apps, they are doing things that MS encouraged them
to doo, at least until the SP2 beta became visible to developers.


Erm, if it's an Intel processor, make sure the BIOS is *really*
Prescott-aware (http://cquirke.mvps.org/sp2intek.htm)

That issue affects a tiny percentage of users.

The thing about SP2 is that, as an NT SP, it has to set a new OS
baseline. That's why it includes stuff like new WMP and DirectX
versions; so that when the time rolls around to sunset SP1 support, MS
doesn't have to worry about older versions of these.

SP2 will in time become the new baseline product on CD; get a new PC
with Windows XP, and your CD will be SP2.

The downside is that installing SP2 on an existing installation is
very like installing a new OS over an old one, in terms of risk.

NO, it's way less risky. Most find it installs and runs just fine.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

SP2 works very well indeed for a great majority of users.

That it does...

That issue affects a tiny percentage of users.

Yes, but they are 100% affected, and seriously so.

Actually, it could affect as much as 1 out of 8 new PC purchases made
over the last 3 months, and continue in the future.

As new mobos will be BIOS-fixed, this will taper, but then you will
start seeing those "OK" recent pre-Prescott systems hitting the wall
with Prescott upgrades.

The logic of my guess: Let's say 50% of PCs sold since June 2004 are
Intel, and of those, 50% are Prescott, and of those, 50% don't have
the appropriate logic within BIOS to work properly.

Well; here, we may have more Intel than AMD, a far higher % of Intel
that is Prescott, and we don't know what the BIOS rediness topography
is like. It could add up to half new PCs being affected, worst-case.

NO, it's way less risky. Most find it installs and runs just fine.

When was the last time you had an OS install break on CPU type?

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

"If I'd known it was harmless, I'd have
killed it myself" (PKD)

 

[Ron Reaugh]

That it does...



Yes, but they are 100% affected, and seriously so.

Actually, it could affect as much as 1 out of 8 new PC purchases made
over the last 3 months, and continue in the future.

As new mobos will be BIOS-fixed, this will taper, but then you will
start seeing those "OK" recent pre-Prescott systems hitting the wall
with Prescott upgrades.

The logic of my guess: Let's say 50% of PCs sold since June 2004 are
Intel, and of those, 50% are Prescott, and of those, 50% don't have
the appropriate logic within BIOS to work properly.

Well; here, we may have more Intel than AMD, a far higher % of Intel
that is Prescott, and we don't know what the BIOS rediness topography
is like. It could add up to half new PCs being affected, worst-case.



When was the last time you had an OS install break on CPU type?

Not an OS install but an SP2 install. Don't know whether that makes it
worse or better<g>. Well worse I guess as a new OS not workin on a certain
CPU platform is par.

The troubling part is that the issue was known in June on RC2.

The 2nd troubling part is that we still do NOT know the exact nature of the
whole issue. What does update.sys do? Why does renaming update.sys or
replacing it with the SP1 version cause SP2 to boot and init normally?

It would have been very easy for MS to fix SP2 to allow Prescotts to boot.
MS knew about the issue well early enough to do something. Why didn't they
do SOMETHING?

How secure is the encryption scheme Intel uses for its CPU microcode
revision pages? Or should this whole issue only be spoken about in
whispers?