XP SP2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
 
Some programs have problems because they were poorly written taking
advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows plugged in SP-2.
Others simply need updates or adjustments.
Still others are abandoned by their manufacturers.
Check the manufacturer for hardware and software compatibility with
SP-2.
Preparation helps for a problem free installation as well.
The number of problems is few once preparations have been made.

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
 
I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
afraid to download it.
Click to expand...

They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.
So many people have problems with
some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
so many problems?
Click to expand...

There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no
problems.
It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
Click to expand...

Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the
folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here.
 
-----Original Message-----
Some programs have problems because they were poorly
written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
plugged in SP-2.
Click to expand...
<snip>

Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you
mean programs that were written for the platform as it
was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
written" program?
 
-----Original Message-----



They are mostly fairy tales. Do SP2.


There are not very many proportionately. Most install and run it with no
problems.


Zealots posting a bunch of FUD. You must remember that NGs distill all the
folks having problems. All the folks having no problems don't come here.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
complaints how many complaints there might be in the
general population? Are you saying that all people *with*
problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just
read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad
fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
 
I have heard some real horror stories about SP2 so I am
afraid to download it. So many people have problems with
some of there programs since installing SP2. why is there
so many problems? It seems like Microsoft wouldn't put
something out that was going to cause everyone to have to
change alot on their computers. Whats the deal?
Click to expand...

I installed SP2 on three PC's all three have very different specs
(although they are all less than 2 years old and very well maintained)
I had no serious issues at all, all my software and hardware continued
to work, with the exception of a bluetooth adapter which I expected
would have conflicts with the new native bluetooth drivers in SP2 but
that was fairly easily resolved.

SP2 is not mandatory and if you have a hardware firewall or don't
connect your PC to the internet at all then it is not necessary but it
can be uninstalled, so give it a try.
 
See my in-line comments.

Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
complaints how many complaints there might be in the
general population?
Click to expand...

Whether or not Ron was saying that, he was probably implying it, and
the statement is certainly true. About the only thing you can say with
some degree of certainly if 200 people post messages describing
problems they have had with SP2 is that at least 200 people have had
problems with SP2! Microsoft publishes (astronomical) figures for the
number of people who have installed the upgrade, so we know _a_
denominator, but it is no more valid to assume that everyone who has
problems comes to this newsgroup than to assume that everyone (or even
everyone with access to the newsgroup) who has upgraded and hasn't
posted hasn't had a problem with the upgrade. My impression, based on
my personal experience and that of other computer professionals that I
know, is that the enormous majority of SP2 upgrades, on systems that
were stable and working properly before the upgrade (this is
important), go smoothly, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to
prove that.
Are you saying that all people *with*
problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
problems don't even know that these groups exist.
Click to expand...

Again IMHO, people who don't know that these groups exist are likely
either not to be running XP or to have simple "appliance" systems, in
which the upgrade is actually more likely to go straightforwardly.
I just
read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied.
Click to expand...

That story bears all the marks of an urban myth! As a matter of fact,
of course, the Recycle Bin does _not_ have to be periodically emptied
- if you don't empty it "manually", it fills up a certain proportion
of the available disk space (I think that the default is 20%) and,
when a new deletion would cause it to exceed that percentage, the
oldest file(s) in the Bin is/are discarded to make room for the new
one.
The sad
fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
Click to expand...

As I have said, I don't think that this is necessarily so.

Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher
 
Wislu Plethora said:
<snip>

Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you
mean programs that were written for the platform as it
was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
written" program?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.

Wislu Plethora said:
Are you saying that we can't project by looking at
complaints how many complaints there might be in the
general population? Are you saying that all people *with*
problems come here? It's more likely that most users with
problems don't even know that these groups exist. I just
read something in one of the PC magazines, a letter from
a guy who said he knew a woman who was on her fourth PC
in two years. She kept getting disk errors and would just
go out and buy a new PC. Turns out she had no idea that
when you delete a file it goes to the Recycle Bin, and
that the Recycle Bin must be periodically emptied. The sad
fact is that the people who need SP2 the most are also
the ones who are most likely to have trouble with it.
Click to expand...
 
-----Original Message-----
SP2 works fine for the great majority of folks.
Click to expand...

What an idiotic statement. It's like telling a person
who's on fire that the vast majority of people don't
burn to death.
 
-----Original Message-----



Nope.
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.
 
Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
party software developers to get their act together..


Wislu Plethota said:
-----Original Message-----



Nope.
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.
Click to expand...
 
-----Original Message-----
Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
party software developers to get their act together..
Click to expand...

Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take
the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that
they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original
code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now
have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes
to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on,
trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some
of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their
ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems
have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers,
nor stupid users, nor spyware.
 
As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you
will probably never see the whole picture.
No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application.
But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's.

People have been demanding more secure and better written code of
Microsoft, well now it came.
Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and
demand the same from them?
If not why not?
Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications
work at all costs?

The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem.
Some worked it out and had information available for their customers
when needed.
Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact
they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least
near a solution at this time..
And still others no longer exist.

Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help
the customers have better information.

If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort
amongst the development community, not just Microsoft.
The users will also have to learn safe computing practices.
If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare
for very unsafe computing.
 
-----Original Message-----
As long as you think "ALL of these problems have a single source", you
will probably never see the whole picture.
No one said the fault is exclusively the 3rd party application.
But it is also not exclusively Microsoft's.

People have been demanding more secure and better written code of
Microsoft, well now it came.
Do you also go to the 3rd party manufacturers that have problems and
demand the same from them?
If not why not?
Is your solution to break Windows XP and make all other applications
work at all costs?

The manufacturers have had many months to see if they had a problem.
Some worked it out and had information available for their customers
when needed.
Others snubbed their customers, blaming Microsoft ignoring the fact
they could have been working the issue and have a solution or at least
near a solution at this time..
And still others no longer exist.

Microsoft and others listed applications known to have issues to help
the customers have better information.

If we are to have secure computing, it is going to take great effort
amongst the development community, not just Microsoft.
The users will also have to learn safe computing practices.
If you expect Microsoft to accomplish secure computing alone, prepare
for very unsafe computing.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're completely avoiding the issue. Microsoft
has NEVER been concerned about secure computing until
things blow up. Remember--it was your "poorly written
code" statement in which you tried to shift blame to
developers who had commited the heinous crime of writing
programs that work on the target platform using the
specifications and architectuire they were given to work
with. You still haven't explained how it is that all of
this code was written to take advantage
of "vulnerabilities" in XP without Microsoft knowing about
the vulnerabilities, and without Microsoft closing the
holes before the miscreants could crawl through them.
 
No one suggest "heinous crime", that is entirely your idea.
As for shifting the blame, you need to read my posts again.
There is blame to go around.
Once you get the idea there is blame on many areas including the users
as well, you will start to get it.
But as long as you believe it is all Microsoft and you are blind to
the rest...

Mike gave an answer to your question.
Software was often designed to give the web developer or program
writer almost unlimited rights to what they wanted to show you.
This was largely at a time when security was not much of an issue.
Progress means change from ALL concerned, not just Microsoft.
Those unwilling to change have a choice of not updating.
Microsoft does not impose the choice on anyone, the users have and
make the choice for themselves.

People have been demanding more security.
If you choose to ignore it, that is your business.
If you choose to go with SP-2, you also choose to do what it takes to
get your computer working properly.
You can also choose another operating system, there are many choices
there as well.
 
Wacko squared. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.

Wislu Plethota said:
-----Original Message-----



Nope.
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.
Click to expand...
 
Mike H said:
Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
party software developers to get their act together..
Click to expand...

Right. Most folks find that SP2 works just fine.
Wislu Plethota said:
-----Original Message-----


-----Original Message-----
Some programs have problems because they were poorly
written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
plugged in SP-2.
<snip>

Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do you
mean programs that were written for the platform as it
was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
written" program?

Nope.
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Go away.

Wislu Plethora said:
Dumb and dumberer. Many 3rd party developers *did* take
the opportunity to update, and it was an expense that
they shouldn't have had to bear, because their original
code was COMPLIANT with the original platform. We now
have oafish users who are totally clueless when it comes
to the idea of software patches who have AU turned on,
trust in MS and install it, only to find out that some
of their programs aren't working. Shame on them for their
ignorance, but the fact remains that ALL of these problems
have a single source, and it's not 3rd party developers,
nor stupid users, nor spyware.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top