W2K SP4 Hosed our PC - Need Help !!!

[WINDOZE - When Pigs Fly !]

Wait till I get my hands on Dollar Bill... he's gonna wish
he never went into the consumer fraud Biz!

W2K SP4 hosed our PC Big time !!!

After having spent two weeks installing/uninstalling W2K
SP4 and running recovery routines, and re-installing SP3,
I can document that SP4 is a piece of sh*t that FUBARS
your PC beyond repair !!!

At this moment I need to know if there is some fugging IE
6 setting that prevents web downloads like Norton/Symantec
security updates, PDF files, etc. from being downloaded???
After installing SP4 I can no longer download from the web
yet I can open websites without normal IE problems. If I
uninstall SP4 and go to SP3 I **CAN** download from the
Web without problems but SP4 corrupted the RAS so I can't
get a dial-up now and I've found no way to repair the
corrupted mess SP4 has created...

Without exaggeration, this SP4 fug-up has cost me $20,000
in the past two weeks and I damned well plan on holding MS
accountable for this and all other losses associated with
THERI FUGGING CRAP SOFTWARE !!!

Any help on this abortion aka W2K appreciated !!!

You can bet you azz that I will be switching to Linux very
shortly and MS can stick their crap where the Sun don't
shine !!!

NEVER agin will we be tortured like this as a result of a
MS "Critical security update" and then not even be able to
contact those idiots via e-mail for support!!!

 

[George Hester]

WINDOZE let me just say. I have SP4 in Windows 2000 Professional Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4.

There are no issues there.

So it seems to me something else is your culprit then just SP4. What do you think?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Win2K's SP4 performs flawlessly on the hundreds of machines I
support at work every day, so I can only surmise that you've some
underlying hardware problem that is being overlooked. Perhaps if you
set aside your frustrations and angry rants, and actually described
your specific symptoms and the precise chain of events preceding their
onset, someone will be able to offer a starting point.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[Guest]

Nope, it absolutely is the SP4 "critcal update". I
uninstall SP4 and go back to SP3 and IE 6 runs fine,
thought the RAS is corrupted from the original SP4
download so I can't get a dial-up. I've installed and
uninstalled SP4 (3) times and confirmed it is definitely
SP4 that prevents downloading files from the web.

Thanks for the thought. I'm thinking that some security
setting w/SP4 is by default not allowing the downloads
now ???

-----Original Message-----
WINDOZE let me just say. I have SP4 in Windows 2000

Professional Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 SP4.

 

[Guest]

Bruce,

PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME YOUR CONDESCENDING VIEWS OF THE
SITUATION...

I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. JUST BECAUSE YOU
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOESN'T MEAN THERE ISN'T ONE. SP4 IS
DOCUMENTED TO HAVE HOSED THOUSANDS OF PCS.

I'M HAPPY FOR YOU THAT YOUR HUNDREDS OF MACHINES RUN FINE.

IF YOU HAD READ THE ORIGINAL PSOTS ***CAREFULLY*** YOU
WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT I CAN DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM TIME
AFTER TIME BY INSTALLING AND UNINSTALLING SP4. OTHER FOLKS
HAVE CONFIRMED SIMILAR ISSUES WITH SP4 AND EVEN MICROSUCKS
ADMITS THERE ARE A BOAT LOAD OF BUGS WITH SP4.

So once again, the problem is that I can NOT download
files from the Web after installing SP4, yet I can connect
to all websites without issues. I can also dial-up with
SP4 installed, but when I un-install SP4 and revert to the
original SP3 I can NOT get a dial-up because RAS can not
be installed even manually. I CAN however download files
from the Web with SP3, but NOT with SP4. Until SP4 hosed
the original W2K w/SP3 all was fine. Microsucks "critical
security update" which consisted only of SP4 is where the
problems started and has continued for two weeks.

If you spent a little more time being REAL you'd know
WINDOWS SUCKS AND ANYONE WITH A CLUE IS DROPPING IT LIKE A
HOT ROCK.

If you got something CONSTRUCTIVE to offer, great. If not
please keep your condescending comments to yourself as you
aren't helping anyone with your UNINFORMED opinion.

 

[George Hester]

Well it doesn't happen here so since we don't have the same system but the SP4 is the same in both our cases, the only logical explanation is that it's your system. I am not trying to say you have a bum system. I 'm just trying to suggest it may not be the SP4 but how your system is dealing with it.

 

[Steven O.]

Another vote -- mine -- that SP4 probably is the problem.

I have a no-name brand AMD Athlon system, AMI Bios -- I could give
details, but they are really not relevant here -- and every time I
tried installing SP4, or any of the other critical upgrades from
Microsoft, my system started to run extremely slowly. In particular,
when I would try to open MS Office files from Explorer, I would have
to wait a long time (20 or 30 seconds) for the Word or Excel to even
open; and then an equally long wait for the particular file to open.
My Mom, with an Gateway system, had similar slow-down problems with
SP4, plus various problems downloading files with IE6.

I did not have the particular problems described below, but I've heard
plenty of anecdotal evidence from others about SP4 problems.

I also believe people who say they've had no problems with SP4. A
safe guess is that SP4 has some idiosyncracies or sloppy code which
causes significant problems with certain configurations of machines.

Blaming that on the computers and their hardware misses the point, in
several senses.

First, if Microsoft wants to own the world (and clearly they do), and
rack up the billions of dollars in spare cash that they have, then
they have a responsibility to test their software on dozens, if not
hundreds of different configurations of machines, using dozens or even
hundreds of different motherboard and hard drive combinations. If the
operating system, or Service Pack, does not work perfectly well on 99%
of them -- or better still, 99.9% -- then it's the operating system or
service pack that's at fault, not the machine.

Second, it may well be that some of these machines are themselves only
99.9% compatible with Windows (or the Service Packs), rather than
100%, which is why the computer sort of runs, but is buggy. On the
other hand, if Windows was an open system at the lower levels, like
Linux, then the hardware manufacturers could know *exactly* what they
have to design to. But since Windows is closed, and secret, it's
Microsoft's fault when these problems arise.

In any event, just to set the record straight -- there is plenty of
anecdotal evidence that SP4 is buggy, even if it works fine on some
machines or brands. The only solution that I know is to reformat the
hard drive, reinstall Win2K SP3 -- and don't touch any further
upgrades, service packs, etc.

Steve O.

 

[Guest]

I understand what you are saying, but the point is the
system works just fine with SP3 but with SP4 all works
fine **EXCEPT** it will NOT allow ANY Web downloads. That
suggest to me it's not the system but a friggin security
setting in SP4/IE6 that needs to be switched on/off. Even
though I've tested several IE6 security options, run thru
the entire list of MS suggested solutions for similar
issues, I haven't found the magic bullet...

And as soon as I switch back to SP3 I can download files
without any problems at all, which again confirms my
belief it's an SP4 issue. So by my reasoning this isn't a
hardware or system issue, it's a friggin SP4/IE6 config.
issue. If you check the MS Knowledge-less-base... you'll
see they had the same problem with Win98. SOS DD.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
Well it doesn't happen here so since we don't have the

same system but the SP4 is the same in both our cases, the
only logical explanation is that it's your system. I am
not trying to say you have a bum system. I 'm just trying
to suggest it may not be the SP4 but how your system is
dealing with it.

 

[Enkidu]

So once again, the problem is that I can NOT download
files from the Web after installing SP4, yet I can connect
to all websites without issues.

Can you be a bit more specific on how you download files
from the web? There is more than one way to do it.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[Ghostrider]

Bruce,

PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME YOUR CONDESCENDING VIEWS OF THE
SITUATION...

I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. JUST BECAUSE YOU
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOESN'T MEAN THERE ISN'T ONE. SP4 IS
DOCUMENTED TO HAVE HOSED THOUSANDS OF PCS.

I'M HAPPY FOR YOU THAT YOUR HUNDREDS OF MACHINES RUN FINE.

There is a very important adage that many people tend to forget...if
it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, what was the compelling reason to
install SP4 on a well-functioning, Windows 2000-SP3 machine?

 

[George Hester]

Well what can I say? Your mind is made up it's the Service Pack and not your system. Of course if what you say is true about the Service Pack then 100% of all Windows 2000 SP4 dial-up users aren't able to d/l files off the Internet either. Of course if you go to the WindowsUpdate newsgroup you will see that is not the case.

I don't know how to explain your issue. You have and so we'll leave it at that.

 

[Steve N.]

Yes, SP4 is buggy. It's been well documented. I've seen it mess up
perfectly good machines with M$ Certified hardware that can run any
other version of OS (including the bloated and picky WinXP and several
distros of Linux) with no problems. Extensive hardware and memory
testing shhows the machines to be in top condition. The problem is
definitely in SP4, eventually M$ will probably quietly cop to it and
issue yet another SP to fix the crap in SP4 - which, by the way, was
released to fix problems caused by SP3. SP3 in turn was issued to fix
things left out of SP2, blah X 3. You get the picture. The track record
speaks for itself.

Steve

 

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

(snip)
In any event, just to set the record straight -- there is plenty of
anecdotal evidence that SP4 is buggy, even if it works fine on some
machines or brands.

Hi

And this was said about SP3 and SP2 and <fill in any service pack to
any MS OS here> as well. By listening to all those advises you would
end up not installing any service pack ever ;-)

For most computers, a SP install will go well, but of course, some
computers will get into trouble.

We have installed SP4 on thousands of computers, and only a few
had issues afterwards.

 

[Steve N.]

:




Hi

And this was said about SP3 and SP2 and <fill in any service pack to
any MS OS here> as well. By listening to all those advises you would
end up not installing any service pack ever ;-)

For most computers, a SP install will go well, but of course, some
computers will get into trouble.

We have installed SP4 on thousands of computers, and only a few
had issues afterwards.

Yes, but a FEW did, didn't they? Why do you suppose that is? And what do
you consider to be an acceptible failure rate? What if that failure rate
is only 5% but YOUR personal computer just happens to be in that 5%? How
does that make YOU feel? People are frustrated, all they want to do is
use the computer they paid hard earned money for but instead they spend
hours, even days just trying to get the damn thing to boot up after
blindly following what the all-knowing Big Brother insisted they do. M$
pushes the updates and SPs at us, convincing us they are needed when
they are not necessarily needed.

You know what's needed? A stable OS, a decent a/v package, properly
configured firewall and a little common sense concerning safe computing.
Win2k SP2 and SP3 are proven fairly stable to me (and I deal with a
pretty big number of computers, too.) Other than just plain crappy OEM
pre-installs (usually from Dell) I have had very little problems with
W2K as long as we stopped at SP3, kept a/v up to date and did regular
disk maintenance.

For what it's worth, for over two years I used Win2K raw, with NO
updates or service packs applied at ALL and NEVER had a serious problem.

But you're right, the same thing has been said about ALL service packs.
Have you ever wondered why? Do you think people just make this stuff up?

Steve

 

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Yes, but a FEW did, didn't they? Why do you suppose that is?

I would think that most of those computers were mis-configured in
some way or in a "shaky" state before the service pack upgrade.

And what do
you consider to be an acceptible failure rate?

I would say somewhere between 0.5 and 1% is an acceptable failure rate.
I don't have exact numbers for the failure rate for our SP4 upgrades,
but it is less than 0.5%

What if that failure rate
is only 5% but YOUR personal computer just happens to be in that 5%? How
does that make YOU feel? People are frustrated, all they want to do is
use the computer they paid hard earned money for but instead they spend
hours, even days just trying to get the damn thing to boot up after
blindly following what the all-knowing Big Brother insisted they do.

Yes, I know it is very frustrating for those that it happens for,
especially if you did not make a backup of your data or system before
the upgrade (even if the SP install tells you that ou should make
one before continuing with the install).

M$ pushes the updates and SPs at us, convincing us they are needed
when they are not necessarily needed.

Our SP4 rollout has been mostly driven by security issues, having an
old service pack level makes it very complicated trying to have
control over all security updates needed for different configurations
and installed components and applications.

You know what's needed? A stable OS, a decent a/v package, properly
configured firewall and a little common sense concerning safe computing.
Win2k SP2 and SP3 are proven fairly stable to me (and I deal with a
pretty big number of computers, too.) Other than just plain crappy OEM
pre-installs (usually from Dell) I have had very little problems with
W2K as long as we stopped at SP3, kept a/v up to date and did regular
disk maintenance.

For what it's worth, for over two years I used Win2K raw, with NO
updates or service packs applied at ALL and NEVER had a serious problem.

But you're right, the same thing has been said about ALL service packs.
Have you ever wondered why? Do you think people just make this stuff up?

No, I don't think people make this stuff up, but using e.g. newsgroup
postings as a part of the assessment on how good a service pack is,
isn't really fair, because that is the place where people go to when
they have problems, and not when everything is hunky-dory.

 

[Tritium]

Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:

...."Steven O." wrote

Our SP4 rollout has been mostly driven by security issues, having an
old service pack level makes it very complicated trying to have
control over all security updates needed for different configurations
and installed components and applications.

No argument here about the need to overcome security issues.
But the essential truth is that the SP contains much more than
just the security patches, but also driver and system updates
that might not be fully tested or proven for everyday use. This
three-steps forward and two steps backward (and not necessarily
in the same foot path --- pardon the analogy) is what creates
problems described in this thread by the OP. IOW, what good is
it to fix one problem while creating or awakening another?

To Steve N: Good luck! Not even Apple is able to achieve this
and it produces a monolithic OS, controlling it from the top to
the bottom. FWIW, if one has the knowledge, time and patience,
it is still better to custom build and set up a machine.

<<snipped>>

 

[Steve N.]

:




I would think that most of those computers were mis-configured in
some way or in a "shaky" state before the service pack upgrade.

I would too, had I not seen enough evidence first hand to the contrary.

I would say somewhere between 0.5 and 1% is an acceptable failure rate.
I don't have exact numbers for the failure rate for our SP4 upgrades,
but it is less than 0.5%

At my home I have had 100% failure rate. At work I cnservatively
estimate close to 50% failure rate. (See below)

Yes, I know it is very frustrating for those that it happens for,
especially if you did not make a backup of your data or system before
the upgrade (even if the SP install tells you that ou should make
one before continuing with the install).

Backups are indeed good practice, but that's not really the point. The
point is that SP4 causes problems for a lot of people and Microsoft (and
you) are ignoring it (for the time being anyway). Instead of
recommending backups and making blanket statements, how about trying to
help figure out exactly WHAT is broken in SP4?

Our SP4 rollout has been mostly driven by security issues, having an
old service pack level makes it very complicated trying to have
control over all security updates needed for different configurations
and installed components and applications.

The only SP level I am aware of being absolutely necessary for recent
critical security updates currently offered by M$ is SP2, which oddly
enough, although there have been reports of SP2 being problematic, I
have never seen any trouble with. I have not seen many problems with SP3
either.

No, I don't think people make this stuff up, but using e.g. newsgroup
postings as a part of the assessment on how good a service pack is,
isn't really fair, because that is the place where people go to when
they have problems, and not when everything is hunky-dory.

Where else are you going to hear about it? I am sure there are hundreds
of thousands of PC happily churning away with Win2K SP4, but for a
growing number this is not the case.

My PERSONAL assesment of SP4 is based on direct experience, not just
what I read here or elsewhere. For example, I have three Win2K Pro
machines at my home. One has been running flawlessly for about 3 years.
Another has been for over a year. Another is a fairly new install and
has no software installed other than that which ships with the OS,
drivers for hardware, an a/v package (AVG) and a firewall (KPF). On all
three immediately after the insallation of SP4 the exact same issues
developed; missing program shortcuts, no Administrative Tools, SFC
failures, random lockups and forced restarts resulting in drive errors.
All three are M$ certified hardware, clean installs, current drivers,
nothing flakey at all. All pass OEM and 3rd party hardware diags with
flying colors.

On nearly every Win2K workstation I can think of that has had SP4
installed at work (where I support hundreds of Windows PCs, a fair
amount running Win2K) there has been general system instability, random
lockups and forced restarts. Two that I personally use (a desktop and a
laptop, different brands and certified Microsoft Compatible for 2K and
XP) I have had to remove SP4 for the same reasons. I seriously doubt
this is coincindental.

Don't get me wrong, Torgeir, you do good, just please do it better and
please quit making excuses for Microsoft. Listen to the people - we are
trying to tell you that SP4 is a problem. Perhaps not for you, but for a
lot of the rest of us.

Steve

 

[Steve N.]

Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:

..."Steven O." wrote


No argument here about the need to overcome security issues.
But the essential truth is that the SP contains much more than
just the security patches, but also driver and system updates
that might not be fully tested or proven for everyday use. This
three-steps forward and two steps backward (and not necessarily
in the same foot path --- pardon the analogy) is what creates
problems described in this thread by the OP. IOW, what good is
it to fix one problem while creating or awakening another?

The same two step dance is evidenced in all major OS developers' Service
Packs and updates that I have experience with (Microsoft, Novell, even
popluar corporate Linux distros like Red Hat). It's the corporate way -
kick the half-baked code out the door, ship it, ready or not.

To Steve N: Good luck! Not even Apple is able to achieve this
and it produces a monolithic OS, controlling it from the top to
the bottom. FWIW, if one has the knowledge, time and patience,
it is still better to custom build and set up a machine.

Yep. That's exactly what I do at home - and in topic for the thread -
SP4 *STILL* choked my home PCs (see other reply to Torgeir). Work is
another story - I don't make purchasing and deployment decisions there.

Apple has gotten a lot closer than most. First runner up has probably
been NeXT, but that's probably going back too far and too short lived.
Same for Amiga. At least Apple is still alive with a good following.
Hope they survive. GNU/Linux shows a lot of promise if someone can
develop a good solid easy to install distro (with a stable GUI like
Apple has on top of OSX) without corporate ties bogging it down. SuSE is
real good but way far off from becoming an OS the average person could
install. All that said, Win2K *can* be (and has been for me) a very
stable OS if you don't jump at every chance to "upgrade" it. If it
works, don't break it.

-Steve

 

[Steve N.]

Then use SP3 and be done with it. Read around here. See any posts about
SP4 being a problem? There are plenty.

Steve

 

[George Hester]

I don't agree. SP3 fixed issues that were not fixed in SP2 which fixed issues that were not fixed in SP1 which fixed issues that came with Windows 2000.

Now SP4. I'm not going to get into "It's all the service pack's fault" because in Windows 2000 Professional I have no issues. In the Server well that's a different matter. And yes there is an issue with SP4 in the server. The issue is compounded by having Internet Explorer 6 installed.

But the issue is really slight and just results in an Error being written to the Event Viewer and in fact another issue where the Event Viewer stops functionaing. Easily fixed. Not the former but I know of no earlier Service Packs that came out to "fix" an earlier one.