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

[Tom Pepper Willett]

"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"

You are describing the way I (and others) feel the same way about WinXP SP2.

I know a little bit about computers and I'm a system admin.

SP2 Will *not* be installed on computers on our network.

Tom

message | 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.
|
| --
| Michael Solomon MS-MVP
| Windows Shell/User
| Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
| DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
|
| | > Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
| >> 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.
| >
| >
| > .
|
|

 

[CS]

Let's not forget that MVPs are volunteers not Microsoft employees.
There are certain MVPs who act more like MS apologists, but even they
are volunteers. They are NOT supposed to as you say "solve customers
problems associated with MS unfinished products."

 

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

That's your decision and a wise one on a network at least until you are sure
of its stability on all your systems but that's not the point. All you need
do is come here to see there are issues and that's enough of a warning.

Someone makes a blind post with no explanation, implying all the user has to
do is the download at some site and everything will be fine. That post was
designed to play on peoples ignorance. You are making an informed choice
and decision.

 

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

I haven't defended anything, I gave a heads up about a post that I thought
was irresponsible. Anything else that might have implied differently was in
response to posts made in response to me. You'll also note, I praised
Linux.

I made no such assertions, if you check my posts up and down these
newsgroups I offer step by step instructions on how to deal with issues.

I repeat, I was only giving a heads up, it wasn't a comparative or
qualitative judgment.

 

[Dave Senior]

Why are all MVPs defending Microsoft Products when in fact all they are supposed
to do is to solve customers problems associated with MS unfinished products.
SP2 is a patch but it seems on some machines an explosion occurs resulting in
keyboards and other parts being broken!

Is there any solution to stop the explosion then? We don't want to hear that
this wonder drug will solve all ills of internet when it clearly breaks
keyboards on some PCs.

Perhaps we should start by asking what make is the keyboard? If it is non
Microsoft brand then a change to Microsoft brand is advisable!

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.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

--
I use non Microsoft products wherever possible which requires no activation.

I use Netscape 7.2 as my default browser which has everything I need for my
work.

I believe in good Financial Management!! I do not believe in enriching rich
jerks!

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

Michael:

I have perused all the MS WinXP and relevant newsgroups. I have seen all
the issues. I have downloaded and studied the documentation from MS as
well as other MVP sites and so on.

We have tested. We have read *all* the documents available on the net
pertaining to SP2.

I, too, am a Microsoft MVP (for Office/FrontPage). I love and endorse the
MS products, but not SP2 at this time.

Tom Pepper Willett

message | That's your decision and a wise one on a network at least until you are
sure
| of its stability on all your systems but that's not the point. All you
need
| do is come here to see there are issues and that's enough of a warning.
|
| Someone makes a blind post with no explanation, implying all the user has
to
| do is the download at some site and everything will be fine. That post
was
| designed to play on peoples ignorance. You are making an informed choice
| and decision.
|
| --
| Michael Solomon MS-MVP
| Windows Shell/User
| Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
| DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
|
| | > "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"
| >
| > You are describing the way I (and others) feel the same way about WinXP
| > SP2.
| >
| > I know a little bit about computers and I'm a system admin.
| >
| > SP2 Will *not* be installed on computers on our network.
| >
| > Tom
| >
| > message | > | 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.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Michael Solomon MS-MVP
| > | Windows Shell/User
| > | Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
| > | DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
| > |
| > | | > | > Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User) wrote:
| > | >> 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 \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

My quarrel in this thread was not about whether or not to install SP2. You
have made an informed decision and as far as I'm concerned, anything that
can so change the operating environment as SP2, needs to be viewed with
caution.

I didn't want people blindly following the link and advice in the post to
which I first responded without at least being informed. That was my
purpose and only purpose.

 

[Papa]

Agreed. But the silence by MVPs (who are usually most helpful) in clarifying
SP2 questions from users is deafening. I wonder why.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"suggesting a new OS is perfectly reasonable."
Possibly, but that link was not posted as "suggesting a new OS is
perfectly reasonable."
It was posted as "patch that can fix this."
Now if you are saying Linux is a patch your point may be valid.

Amy said one thing then sent unsuspecting people somewhere else.
It is not relevant if the site is clear for what it is, it is not at
all as Amy suggested.
Is that typical behaviour expected from Linux users.
Do they feel it is necessary to deceive to get people to their sites?
If the above is true, I guess this is acceptable...to them.
But I doubt most Linux users support deception as a valid tool to
advertise the product.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

First off, where are these posts about SP2 that haven't been explained?
The only real problems that can't be fully explained (but can still be
fixed quite easily) have to do with messed up chipset drivers which
introduce abnormal behavior. This can be fixed by reinstalling the
chipset drivers. Give the Service Pack a little while for the MVP's who
are still learning its in's and out's. Some of us who help out know
more about SP2 than others and we are all learning to some degree.

Here is what really causes all of the problems with SP2: Non-Technical
computer users. This is the average computer user who knows how to
browse the internet, but knows nothing about security or even how to
install drivers. These are the people whose systems are inundated with
spyware/viruses. I have installed SP2 on over 20 systems so far and not
a single one has had an issue (except one that was a Prescott CPU which
was my fault for not updating the BIOS).

The problem doesn't point to the software, but more often the user and
junk they have allowed on their computer. Don't blame SP2 when you
can't take care of your computer. I would be willing to bet money that
any of these people doing a clean install of SP2 integrated will have
none of the problems they currently have. People just don't know how to
take care of their systems.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

You want to see the MVP's not defend a Microsoft Product, bring up
Windows ME. You try writing all the code that Windows has in it and
develop an OS that is as good as XP. Linux can't compare with Windows
when it comes to user friendliness.

Most problems encountered with SP2 are a result of an existing problem
that was simply exacerbated by the install of SP2. People just don't
know how to maintain a clean PC. This is expected and that is why MS
has focused so much on security recently.

As for suggesting MS hardware because someone else's doesn't work, where
do you see that? I use MS hardware because it works well, but I also
use other brands such as Logitech. I haven't had any problems, but I am
a very technical user. Most people don't know how to find and install
the latest drivers. This has cured almost all issues by simply updating
software/drivers. Once people start learning how to maintain their
computer, these questions will die down.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

To add to that, how many SPAM links have been posted here linking to
viruses and God knows what else? It is always a good idea to add a
description to a link. I am not attacking anyone because I myself am
horrible at this. I almost always post links without a description, but
my links usually have microsoft.com in them which gives a good
indication that the link is safe.

As for Linux, everyone will switch over once it is as easy to set up and
use as Windows. My grandparents can install Windows and they just got a
computer. They can't even say Linux right much less figure out how to
isntall it or call up the GUI.

 

[Robert E. Wijnberg]

Here is what really causes all of the problems with SP2: Non-Technical
computer users. This is the average computer user who knows how to
browse the internet, but knows nothing about security or even how to
install drivers. These are the people whose systems are inundated
with spyware/viruses. I have installed SP2 on over 20 systems so far
and not a single one has had an issue (except one that was a Prescott
CPU which was my fault for not updating the BIOS).

The problem doesn't point to the software, but more often the user and
junk they have allowed on their computer. Don't blame SP2 when you
can't take care of your computer. I would be willing to bet money
that any of these people doing a clean install of SP2 integrated will
have none of the problems they currently have. People just don't
know how to take care of their systems.

Pfff, I thought this OS was developped for Joe the average non technical
user....
The user who understands how he has to position his mouse over buttons and
clicking them.




..

 

[Don Taylor]

First off, where are these posts about SP2 that haven't been explained?

Ok, where is the explanation for the string of folks who all have a
pretty similar description, "click on a file and Windows Explorer crashes"?

The only real problems that can't be fully explained (but can still be
fixed quite easily) have to do with messed up chipset drivers which
introduce abnormal behavior.

I'd guess clicking on a filename might be less likely to be a chipset
issue, but I'm open to your explanation for this one. Thus far in the
thousands of posts I've read I haven't seen a single explanation for
this. Let alone a fix. (thus far there are two work-arounds that do
part of the job for some of the people with this until a real fix comes
along, run in safe mode or create a new user)

This can be fixed by reinstalling the
chipset drivers. Give the Service Pack a little while for the MVP's who
are still learning its in's and out's. Some of us who help out know
more about SP2 than others and we are all learning to some degree.

I can certainly understand that. From reading all the posts there have
been very very very few postings that really have a specific explanation.
THere are a handful that suggested changing something and a person would
report that it worked. But it is still early for anyone outside of
Microsoft to really know why something doesn't work. And I haven't
seen any report of which chipset is responsible for Explorer crashing.

Here is what really causes all of the problems with SP2: Non-Technical
computer users.

"All" is an impressively strong analysis for you to be able to claim.
But that is a market that Microsoft doesn't seem to want to walk away
from. If Microsoft wanted to refuse to sell products to anyone who didn't
pass an entrance exam maybe this would be different. But if they have
chosen who they want to market to then they accept the consequences.

This is the average computer user who knows how to
browse the internet, but knows nothing about security or even how to
install drivers. These are the people whose systems are inundated with
spyware/viruses.

The chant "it is all viruses and spyware and stupid users" has been
posted in this newsgroup hundreds of times in the last week. These claims
are easy to make, just point the finger at someone else. Maybe some of
them are true. But I haven't seen any people who went back and checked
and confirmed that this was the case. Where is the evidence that this
claim is true?

I have installed SP2 on over 20 systems so far and not
a single one has had an issue (except one that was a Prescott CPU which
was my fault for not updating the BIOS).

For a particular collection of machines that is uniform enough I would
not be too surprised if you only had a 5% failure rate.

The problem doesn't point to the software, but more often the user and
junk they have allowed on their computer. Don't blame SP2 when you
can't take care of your computer. I would be willing to bet money that
any of these people doing a clean install of SP2 integrated will have
none of the problems they currently have. People just don't know how to
take care of their systems.

I have antivirus software updated daily, I have a firewall updated daily.
I have spyware checks run once a week. All email comes in here in ASCII,
I NEVER let something like Outlook execute arbitrary code in mail. The
security settings on Internet Explorer are turned up high enough that I
continually accept or reject little popup windows, high enough that some
of the web pages at Microsoft will not correctly function, even if I do
accept all the warnings about the pages. There hasn't been a virus on
the system in four years, other than those I manually transfer via ftp,
to see if the antivirus software will sieze it the minute the transfer
is finished or whether it is too new for the av to see it, and then I
ftp it off to the av-lab. All the latest updates from Microsoft were
put on the system, other than things I will never use, like each new
bigger version of Microsoft Media Player. I've been in the software
business, writing and using, for more than twenty five years.

I install SP2 and Windows Explorer in every use on the system immediately
locks up, refuses any keystroke or mouse click.

I think I know how to take care of my system, and those that I do
support on. I've hammered the users so they never get crap on their
systems. You want to bet your money. I'm up for that, let's make it
an interesting amount. Put it on the table, let's do it.

Don Taylor

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Then this is what you want. Hardware based Windows which only has the
OS and Office. You can't install anything and no code can be run except
that which is in the hardware. Now you can't screw anything up, but you
also can't do much with your computer.

The average joe in computer terms is like the moron who is 40 years old,
going to strip clubs, getting drunk, smoking, and thinking it is all
good for his body. I know this closely fits Al Bundy, but seriously,
you can't make the OS much more idiot proof without removing
functionality that is required by some of us who are more technically
inclined. If you don't like Windows, have fun with Linux or buy a Mac.

 

[Alias]

take care of their systems.

I agree and MS shouldn't encourage AU for that very reason. On the Windows
Update page, AU is recommended and not one link on how to prepare your
computer for SP2.

Not that I am bitching. I am sure when SP2 is released in Spain, that our
tech biz will get loads of calls.

Alias

 

[Nathan McNulty]

See inline comments

----
Nathan McNulty

Ok, where is the explanation for the string of folks who all have a
pretty similar description, "click on a file and Windows Explorer crashes"?

Date of post and post title (and newsgroup)? I have yet to encounter an
issue like this on the 20+ computers I have installed SP2 on as well as
ever during all of the beta testing.

I'd guess clicking on a filename might be less likely to be a chipset
issue, but I'm open to your explanation for this one. Thus far in the
thousands of posts I've read I haven't seen a single explanation for
this. Let alone a fix. (thus far there are two work-arounds that do
part of the job for some of the people with this until a real fix comes
along, run in safe mode or create a new user)

Again, I haven't seen any posts with this description, though I haven't
looked through the general newsgroups in a while. Here in the hardware
newsgroups where I spend most of my time, it has all been chipset issues
which seem to be resolved by reinstalling the chipset drivers. I don't
even want to take a stab at why this is happening.

Also, in the hardware newsgroup, there have only been 400 posts dealing
with SP2 (that is including replies too!). I am sure the General
newsgroup is a zoo, which is why I like to stay out of there as it moves
much too fast for me.

I can certainly understand that. From reading all the posts there have
been very very very few postings that really have a specific explanation.
THere are a handful that suggested changing something and a person would
report that it worked. But it is still early for anyone outside of
Microsoft to really know why something doesn't work. And I haven't
seen any report of which chipset is responsible for Explorer crashing.

I can tell you that certain Intel Chipsets with Prescott CPU's have
caused quite a bit of fun. It is still early and most people are still
learning how to troubleshoot SP2. Also, many hardware makers haven't
released software that is specifically designed for SP2, but simply use
a patch or something similar to allow Windows to run it. These problems
will begin to resolve as time goes on since these drivers/software
programs will finally be fixed. It is NOT Microsoft's fault when
software or drivers don't work properly on their OS. It is the
responsibility of the hardware/software vendor to make their product
work with Windows. Microsoft provides the proper tools to these vendors.

"All" is an impressively strong analysis for you to be able to claim.
But that is a market that Microsoft doesn't seem to want to walk away
from. If Microsoft wanted to refuse to sell products to anyone who didn't
pass an entrance exam maybe this would be different. But if they have
chosen who they want to market to then they accept the consequences.

All is a very strong word and I agree, too strong. I would say though,
that most of the problems I have helped with, especially when deploying
the service pack at my college, have been caused by installing "crap"
for a lack of a better word.

The chant "it is all viruses and spyware and stupid users" has been
posted in this newsgroup hundreds of times in the last week. These claims
are easy to make, just point the finger at someone else. Maybe some of
them are true. But I haven't seen any people who went back and checked
and confirmed that this was the case. Where is the evidence that this
claim is true?

I say this simply from experience on a college campus. Now I admit
colleges are a totally different crowd with all the P2P software and you
don't even want to know what they are trying to download, but it would
probably be something they don't want to show their parents. Along with
this comes all wonders of malware. I would consider myself
knowledgeable and keep my Antivirus as well as my Firewall up to date.
I have not had a single problem in the last 5 years since I have learned
how to keep my computer secure and up to date on the software/drivers.
I do admit that it shouldn't take that kind of knowledge to keep the
computer running though which is something Microsoft needs to work on if
there is even anything they can do.

For a particular collection of machines that is uniform enough I would
not be too surprised if you only had a 5% failure rate.

These are all machines that I have built. There are only two of them
that could be considered "uniform." A few of these are computers of
friends that I have built, but most are my computers that I have here at
home and at school.

I have antivirus software updated daily, I have a firewall updated daily.
I have spyware checks run once a week. All email comes in here in ASCII,
I NEVER let something like Outlook execute arbitrary code in mail. The
security settings on Internet Explorer are turned up high enough that I
continually accept or reject little popup windows, high enough that some
of the web pages at Microsoft will not correctly function, even if I do
accept all the warnings about the pages. There hasn't been a virus on
the system in four years, other than those I manually transfer via ftp,
to see if the antivirus software will sieze it the minute the transfer
is finished or whether it is too new for the av to see it, and then I
ftp it off to the av-lab. All the latest updates from Microsoft were
put on the system, other than things I will never use, like each new
bigger version of Microsoft Media Player. I've been in the software
business, writing and using, for more than twenty five years.

I install SP2 and Windows Explorer in every use on the system immediately
locks up, refuses any keystroke or mouse click.

I think I know how to take care of my system, and those that I do
support on. I've hammered the users so they never get crap on their
systems. You want to bet your money. I'm up for that, let's make it
an interesting amount. Put it on the table, let's do it.

Have you actually tried a slipstreamed (SP2) install with default
drivers? You being a software developer, you know how much coding goes
into something like Windows. You really think they are going to be able
to make an OS that is 100% compatible with absolutely every peice of
hardware out there? You think that every software/driver developer is
going to write perfect software/drivers? There is no such thing as the
perfect code. There are going to be systems like yours or those with
the special Prescott case that no matter what you do, Windows will not
function as it should. You just have to ask what is preventing it from
doing so. Is it actually Windows or is it your hardware/software/drivers?

Don Taylor

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Imagine how MS Tech support must feel! I find this whole topic
hilarious because I have been responding to it as if it had only been
posted in the hardware group and now see that it is crossposted to a ton
of newsgroups. Guess that only adds to the fun

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Also, read this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1642449,00.asp

----
Nathan McNulty

See inline comments

----
Nathan McNulty

Ok, where is the explanation for the string of folks who all have a
pretty similar description, "click on a file and Windows Explorer
crashes"?

Date of post and post title (and newsgroup)? I have yet to encounter an
issue like this on the 20+ computers I have installed SP2 on as well as
ever during all of the beta testing.

I'd guess clicking on a filename might be less likely to be a chipset
issue, but I'm open to your explanation for this one. Thus far in the
thousands of posts I've read I haven't seen a single explanation for
this. Let alone a fix. (thus far there are two work-arounds that do
part of the job for some of the people with this until a real fix comes
along, run in safe mode or create a new user)

Again, I haven't seen any posts with this description, though I haven't
looked through the general newsgroups in a while. Here in the hardware
newsgroups where I spend most of my time, it has all been chipset issues
which seem to be resolved by reinstalling the chipset drivers. I don't
even want to take a stab at why this is happening.

Also, in the hardware newsgroup, there have only been 400 posts dealing
with SP2 (that is including replies too!). I am sure the General
newsgroup is a zoo, which is why I like to stay out of there as it moves
much too fast for me.

I can certainly understand that. From reading all the posts there have
been very very very few postings that really have a specific explanation.
THere are a handful that suggested changing something and a person would
report that it worked. But it is still early for anyone outside of
Microsoft to really know why something doesn't work. And I haven't
seen any report of which chipset is responsible for Explorer crashing.

I can tell you that certain Intel Chipsets with Prescott CPU's have
caused quite a bit of fun. It is still early and most people are still
learning how to troubleshoot SP2. Also, many hardware makers haven't
released software that is specifically designed for SP2, but simply use
a patch or something similar to allow Windows to run it. These problems
will begin to resolve as time goes on since these drivers/software
programs will finally be fixed. It is NOT Microsoft's fault when
software or drivers don't work properly on their OS. It is the
responsibility of the hardware/software vendor to make their product
work with Windows. Microsoft provides the proper tools to these vendors.

"All" is an impressively strong analysis for you to be able to claim.
But that is a market that Microsoft doesn't seem to want to walk away
from. If Microsoft wanted to refuse to sell products to anyone who
didn't
pass an entrance exam maybe this would be different. But if they have
chosen who they want to market to then they accept the consequences.

All is a very strong word and I agree, too strong. I would say though,
that most of the problems I have helped with, especially when deploying
the service pack at my college, have been caused by installing "crap"
for a lack of a better word.

The chant "it is all viruses and spyware and stupid users" has been
posted in this newsgroup hundreds of times in the last week. These
claims
are easy to make, just point the finger at someone else. Maybe some of
them are true. But I haven't seen any people who went back and checked
and confirmed that this was the case. Where is the evidence that this
claim is true?

I say this simply from experience on a college campus. Now I admit
colleges are a totally different crowd with all the P2P software and you
don't even want to know what they are trying to download, but it would
probably be something they don't want to show their parents. Along with
this comes all wonders of malware. I would consider myself
knowledgeable and keep my Antivirus as well as my Firewall up to date. I
have not had a single problem in the last 5 years since I have learned
how to keep my computer secure and up to date on the software/drivers. I
do admit that it shouldn't take that kind of knowledge to keep the
computer running though which is something Microsoft needs to work on if
there is even anything they can do.

For a particular collection of machines that is uniform enough I would
not be too surprised if you only had a 5% failure rate.

These are all machines that I have built. There are only two of them
that could be considered "uniform." A few of these are computers of
friends that I have built, but most are my computers that I have here at
home and at school.

I have antivirus software updated daily, I have a firewall updated daily.
I have spyware checks run once a week. All email comes in here in ASCII,
I NEVER let something like Outlook execute arbitrary code in mail. The
security settings on Internet Explorer are turned up high enough that I
continually accept or reject little popup windows, high enough that some
of the web pages at Microsoft will not correctly function, even if I do
accept all the warnings about the pages. There hasn't been a virus on
the system in four years, other than those I manually transfer via ftp,
to see if the antivirus software will sieze it the minute the transfer
is finished or whether it is too new for the av to see it, and then I
ftp it off to the av-lab. All the latest updates from Microsoft were
put on the system, other than things I will never use, like each new
bigger version of Microsoft Media Player. I've been in the software
business, writing and using, for more than twenty five years.

I install SP2 and Windows Explorer in every use on the system immediately
locks up, refuses any keystroke or mouse click.

I think I know how to take care of my system, and those that I do
support on. I've hammered the users so they never get crap on their
systems. You want to bet your money. I'm up for that, let's make it
an interesting amount. Put it on the table, let's do it.

Have you actually tried a slipstreamed (SP2) install with default
drivers? You being a software developer, you know how much coding goes
into something like Windows. You really think they are going to be able
to make an OS that is 100% compatible with absolutely every peice of
hardware out there? You think that every software/driver developer is
going to write perfect software/drivers? There is no such thing as the
perfect code. There are going to be systems like yours or those with
the special Prescott case that no matter what you do, Windows will not
function as it should. You just have to ask what is preventing it from
doing so. Is it actually Windows or is it your hardware/software/drivers?

Don Taylor

 

[Don Taylor]

See inline comments

Date of post and post title (and newsgroup)? I have yet to encounter an
issue like this on the 20+ computers I have installed SP2 on as well as
ever during all of the beta testing.

You posted to, or replied to, a posting that also appeared in

Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.accessibility

and I'd guess in the last week there have been between fifteen and thirty
different people post in windowsxp.general, each describing something very
similar to what I just described. If you need to find them you can search
old postings for SP2 and Explorer, and then toss out those that meant
Internet Explorer. Or if you want I can do that, append the hundred or
so messages specifically addressing this and send it to you.

The number of different people with very similar descriptions of their
problem have led me to believe that this isn't just random problems,
these folks are seeing the same bug(s).

Again, I haven't seen any posts with this description, though I haven't
looked through the general newsgroups in a while. Here in the hardware
newsgroups where I spend most of my time, it has all been chipset issues
which seem to be resolved by reinstalling the chipset drivers. I don't
even want to take a stab at why this is happening.

My reply had nothing to do with the hardware newsgroup. Whoever started
this just shotgunned the newsgroups.

Also, in the hardware newsgroup, there have only been 400 posts dealing
with SP2 (that is including replies too!). I am sure the General
newsgroup is a zoo, which is why I like to stay out of there as it moves
much too fast for me.

Not too bad, maybe a thousand or maybe more postings a day. And it gives
a much bigger view of what happened when SP2 hit the street.

I can tell you that certain Intel Chipsets with Prescott CPU's have
caused quite a bit of fun. It is still early and most people are still
learning how to troubleshoot SP2. Also, many hardware makers haven't
released software that is specifically designed for SP2, but simply use
a patch or something similar to allow Windows to run it. These problems
will begin to resolve as time goes on since these drivers/software
programs will finally be fixed. It is NOT Microsoft's fault when
software or drivers don't work properly on their OS. It is the
responsibility of the hardware/software vendor to make their product
work with Windows. Microsoft provides the proper tools to these vendors.

All is a very strong word and I agree, too strong. I would say though,
that most of the problems I have helped with, especially when deploying
the service pack at my college, have been caused by installing "crap"
for a lack of a better word.

That's a wildly different claim.

Too much of what has been posted by a number of folks have a sample size
that is too small to mean much of anything. I'd dearly love to see the
results of Microsoft randomly calling 10,000 individuals who downloaded
SP2 and quiz them about what problems they had, if any. I'd guess that
they might even know that by now, but they aren't talking as far as I know.

But I'd still be curious how you have actually been able to really KNOW
that software on the system was the cause of the problem, how can anyone
REALLY determine that?

I say this simply from experience on a college campus. Now I admit
colleges are a totally different crowd with all the P2P software and you
don't even want to know what they are trying to download, but it would
probably be something they don't want to show their parents. Along with
this comes all wonders of malware. I would consider myself
knowledgeable and keep my Antivirus as well as my Firewall up to date.
I have not had a single problem in the last 5 years since I have learned
how to keep my computer secure and up to date on the software/drivers.
I do admit that it shouldn't take that kind of knowledge to keep the
computer running though which is something Microsoft needs to work on if
there is even anything they can do.

A mailer and web browser that would have kept that crap off the system
in the first place in almost all circumstances would have kept us out
of the mess that got us were we are today. This isn't rocket science,
but a mailer that can script reformatting your drives must be.

These are all machines that I have built. There are only two of them
that could be considered "uniform." A few of these are computers of
friends that I have built, but most are my computers that I have here at
home and at school.

Have you actually tried a slipstreamed (SP2) install with default
drivers?

At the moment I'm not screwing with the system, hoping MS support and
I can track down at least one of the Windows Explorer bugs and get them
to fix it before I just reformat the drive, the problem goes away and
Microsoft writes it off to another unknown problem that is forgotten.

I really hesitate to use the new method of debugging, "cycle the power
or reinstall it and see if you maybe don't bother calling us back."

You being a software developer, you know how much coding goes
into something like Windows. You really think they are going to be able
to make an OS that is 100% compatible with absolutely every peice of
hardware out there? You think that every software/driver developer is
going to write perfect software/drivers? There is no such thing as the
perfect code. There are going to be systems like yours or those with
the special Prescott case that no matter what you do, Windows will not
function as it should. You just have to ask what is preventing it from
doing so. Is it actually Windows or is it your hardware/software/drivers?

First, you have changed the rules. You proposed putting money on the
table to back up your claims. I agreed we do that.

Now you have done what I've seen done a hundred times before, changed
the discusstion to "software can't ever be perfect so you can't complain
about how good or bad any of it is."

Just for a baseline, I spent the decade of the '80s finishing a product
with menus, hardware, multiple sources of commands, more conflicting
hardware constraints than Windows will ever imagine, etc. We put effort
into producing good software. Our measure of that was 1 user out of
every 2000 using the product full time year round would find 1 bug, the
other 1999 would never even see it, and that I would be able to quickly
find and fix that and have less than a 1% chance of introducing another
bug in the process. Put another way, imagine two dozen people using
Windows full time year around for 50 years and after all that there
would be >90% chance that not a one of them would have ever seen a
single bug, no matter how small, no matter who you wanted to point
the finger at claiming it was their fault, not yours.

When Windows code gets somewhere vaguely near that we can discuss quality.

At the moment I'd suggest that no user can likely determine why
something failed and it is probably the case that Microsoft can't
determine why a particular failure happened with a particular report.
If history is any guide, it is often the case that nobody REALLY
wants to know exactly whose fault it is, that gets embarrassing.

I still cannot understand why SP2 didn't do a virus/spyware check, do a
system file check, do a registry validation, and turn off or force the
user to turn off any and all running programs that were not essential
for SP2 and kill any unknown processes BEFORE the installation.

It wouldn't be that hard to have done that and if some of the claims
being made that these cause "all the problems" and that there are no
problems with SP2 are true then Microsoft could have saved themselves
from untold support costs and public relations expense. That isn't
even considering the cost the users paid for this, that's just
considering the savings for Microsoft. Even if that had only reduced
the failure rate by 90% it would have saved a fortune.

Don Taylor