P
Papa
IMHO, those going to Linux had better not be newbies.
N
Nathan McNulty
I really like your comment here:
They could have incorporated something like PSKill into SP2. If they can
take the time to check and see if you are on battery power or not, they
should be able to do a scan for all of this.
Here is your real problem. The way Microsoft cunducts their beta
testing is sometimes less than desireable. They often choose very
technical people that don't acurately represent the cross section of
computer users. Their methods in dealing with reported bugs are often
exactly as you stated. They pass it off as an unkown problem and don't
fully address it. You have to admit they try very hard to produce a
quality OS. There is nothing in the EULA that states the MS is required
to provide updates to their OS, but they do anyways.
You comparing your software compatibilty with Windows is unfair. I
don't doubt that you use very strong coding, but in the 80's there
wasn't as wide of a variety of hardware or software as there is today.
To add to that, it was your responsibility to write a good program for
whatever OS it was, not tha maker of the OS to write around what you
have installed. How would you like it is a customer told you your
software program didn't work but it was because of some peice of crap
they installed or some bad peice of hardware causing the problem? I
still challenge you to write an OS better than XP is right now. If you
are so good at strong code, make your own OS.
Also, there will be no bet. I know this will disappoint you, but first,
I don't bet. Second, it is a figure of speech, not to be taken
literally. Finally, there are almost always exceptions and there
definetly would be in this case. My point was simply that most problems
seen with SP2 are a result of a bad install or a poorly maintained OS
that would probably not exist again upon a clean install of SP2
slipstreamed.
Last note, you will never get your problem sorted by Microsoft. You can
submit the bug to them, but they are simply going to claim they cannot
reproduce your problem and pass it off as nothing. I would just get
your system into a working state (whatever that required) and just gripe
about the problems you run into along the way.
They could have incorporated something like PSKill into SP2. If they can
take the time to check and see if you are on battery power or not, they
should be able to do a scan for all of this.
Here is your real problem. The way Microsoft cunducts their beta
testing is sometimes less than desireable. They often choose very
technical people that don't acurately represent the cross section of
computer users. Their methods in dealing with reported bugs are often
exactly as you stated. They pass it off as an unkown problem and don't
fully address it. You have to admit they try very hard to produce a
quality OS. There is nothing in the EULA that states the MS is required
to provide updates to their OS, but they do anyways.
You comparing your software compatibilty with Windows is unfair. I
don't doubt that you use very strong coding, but in the 80's there
wasn't as wide of a variety of hardware or software as there is today.
To add to that, it was your responsibility to write a good program for
whatever OS it was, not tha maker of the OS to write around what you
have installed. How would you like it is a customer told you your
software program didn't work but it was because of some peice of crap
they installed or some bad peice of hardware causing the problem? I
still challenge you to write an OS better than XP is right now. If you
are so good at strong code, make your own OS.
Also, there will be no bet. I know this will disappoint you, but first,
I don't bet. Second, it is a figure of speech, not to be taken
literally. Finally, there are almost always exceptions and there
definetly would be in this case. My point was simply that most problems
seen with SP2 are a result of a bad install or a poorly maintained OS
that would probably not exist again upon a clean install of SP2
slipstreamed.
Last note, you will never get your problem sorted by Microsoft. You can
submit the bug to them, but they are simply going to claim they cannot
reproduce your problem and pass it off as nothing. I would just get
your system into a working state (whatever that required) and just gripe
about the problems you run into along the way.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:42:49 -0400, Barry Watzman
Yes, the Prescott generation came out around June 2004. They double
the L1 data cache and L2 cache of Northwood, push the Celeron's base
speed up from 400MHz to 533MHz, and have a few other plusses (SIMD3
upcodes) and minuses (longer pipelines, which slow down the chip now,
but allow it to fare better at future higher clock speeds).
Or, if there's no BIOS update yet, uninstall SP2.
Things are looking up there, for Jetway 875P users at least; Jetway
sent me revision 5 of the BIOS, dated 1 September 2004, and that does
the trick - it pushes up Prescott Celeron stepping C0 to revision 11,
which beats new Intel Bayfield stock's revision 7 ;-)
Clarification: Steppings 2 and 3 (C0) are OK with rev 7, while
Stepping 4 (D0) needs rev 8. Still, nice to be a few revs ahead!
My test Jetway 875P runs SP2 (including SP2's Update.sys) like a charm
now, having done the BIOS update.
I have electricity bills to prove it!
Yes, the Prescott generation came out around June 2004. They double
the L1 data cache and L2 cache of Northwood, push the Celeron's base
speed up from 400MHz to 533MHz, and have a few other plusses (SIMD3
upcodes) and minuses (longer pipelines, which slow down the chip now,
but allow it to fare better at future higher clock speeds).
Or, if there's no BIOS update yet, uninstall SP2.
Things are looking up there, for Jetway 875P users at least; Jetway
sent me revision 5 of the BIOS, dated 1 September 2004, and that does
the trick - it pushes up Prescott Celeron stepping C0 to revision 11,
which beats new Intel Bayfield stock's revision 7 ;-)
Clarification: Steppings 2 and 3 (C0) are OK with rev 7, while
Stepping 4 (D0) needs rev 8. Still, nice to be a few revs ahead!
My test Jetway 875P runs SP2 (including SP2's Update.sys) like a charm
now, having done the BIOS update.
I *am* a power user!
I have electricity bills to prove it!
C
Charlie
Tom said:
That's only sensible when you are responsible for the reliable operation
of a number of machines. Our network, a mixture of XP & 98 is very
stable, works well and is secured by non MS software/equipment, it would
be irresponsible of me to put that all at risk for no gain.
We have to accept that security was never a priority with MS but the
fact is that XP is a really good OS and a joy to use.
I know it's a different story when we look at Mr J. Average with his
single machine wide open to all takers. I think that MS is trying to do
the impossible in SP2 - you can't cater for a million flavours - but at
least, if belatedly, they have tried.
What's needed is a clever little program that checks out a machine
before beginning the install of SP2 - this is something that MS could do
a couple of months down the line. It could at least flag up potential
conflicts & troubles.
Charlie.
C
Charlie
Nathan McNulty wrote:
I find that arrogant, demeaning & totally wrong - I know plenty of 40
year olds who have not done any of the above, who each day get in their
car and drive to work. Every so often they put petrol in the car, check
the tyre pressure, check the oil & water; every few months they check
the plugs & change the oil or let the garage do it for them. Every few
years, after reliably servicing the car it is exchanged for a new one.
But Joe & Judy Average were never told that they needed to do some basic
maintaining when they bought their computer, they were not given a
service manual (just look at the piddly sheets of paper that come with
XP). The implication was that their computer was similar to their TV.
Don't blame the Averages - blame Marketing!
Charlie.
<SNIP>
I find that arrogant, demeaning & totally wrong - I know plenty of 40
year olds who have not done any of the above, who each day get in their
car and drive to work. Every so often they put petrol in the car, check
the tyre pressure, check the oil & water; every few months they check
the plugs & change the oil or let the garage do it for them. Every few
years, after reliably servicing the car it is exchanged for a new one.
But Joe & Judy Average were never told that they needed to do some basic
maintaining when they bought their computer, they were not given a
service manual (just look at the piddly sheets of paper that come with
XP). The implication was that their computer was similar to their TV.
Don't blame the Averages - blame Marketing!
Charlie.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
The blame goes many places not just marketing.
1. Computer owners...they assume a computer is a simple appliance and
often do nothing to research what must periodically be done.
2. Sales people, although sales people generally do not mention
negative aspects of their product unless necessary.
Mentioning work necessary to keep computer secure can be considered
negative.
3. Computer manufacturers are probably the biggest.
They have the product and opportunity to give the information directly
to customer and generally do not.
4. Friends and relatives...if you are knowledgeable, you should help
insure others around you are informed.
5. Microsoft for downplaying what is necessary to properly protect
and use a computer, although that has changed significantly in the
past year.
The list can go on, but the point is there are plenty of places to
blame.
1. Computer owners...they assume a computer is a simple appliance and
often do nothing to research what must periodically be done.
2. Sales people, although sales people generally do not mention
negative aspects of their product unless necessary.
Mentioning work necessary to keep computer secure can be considered
negative.
3. Computer manufacturers are probably the biggest.
They have the product and opportunity to give the information directly
to customer and generally do not.
4. Friends and relatives...if you are knowledgeable, you should help
insure others around you are informed.
5. Microsoft for downplaying what is necessary to properly protect
and use a computer, although that has changed significantly in the
past year.
The list can go on, but the point is there are plenty of places to
blame.
C
Charlie
Jupiter said:
<SNIP>
I don't want to chase this one into the ground but I guess I identify
with the small guy. The small guy never had a computer - he grew up,
went to school, etc, got a job, watched TV. Then along came personal
computers & the Internet - it was SOLD to him ( you and I - being geeks
- went out looking for it ). The small guy was deceived by the big guys
and now we gave the gall to blame Mr Small for making OUR Internet
insecure.
I'm sorry but that just does not wash. What makes the Internet unsafe is
the rampant marketing of computers/Internet, the Mafia and their porno
friends, etc - most of what makes the Internet unsafe originates in the
US, a lot of it from Florida. If all the spam originating from the US or
US companies were to stop tomorrow we'd likely see one piece of spam a
month!
Charlie.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Charlie;
To bad you read #1 and snipped the rest before reading them.
Also they were in no particular order.
Or are you suggesting the buyer has no responsibility because it is
all someone else's fault?
Lastly your rant about spam may apply to you but it certainly does not
apply to me and many others.
To bad you read #1 and snipped the rest before reading them.
Also they were in no particular order.
Or are you suggesting the buyer has no responsibility because it is
all someone else's fault?
Lastly your rant about spam may apply to you but it certainly does not
apply to me and many others.
C
Charlie
OK, I was somewhat over the top - for which I apologise - it's just thatJupiter said:
I am forever seeing technically literate guys (usually) putting down the
Averages. Of course you are right, we all - as consumers - have a duty
to be responsible users of the products that we purchase.
The only way out would seem to be some kind of Internet driving licence.
As to the spam rant - I can't say much because I cleared out my history
and lost the reference that indicates that 80%+ of spam originates from
the US. Not necessarily US servers.
Charlie.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
"Internet driving licence" would probably help a lot if there was a
method of enforcement.
But that will probably never happen.
method of enforcement.
But that will probably never happen.
M
Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)
I agree, computers are not mass market items and should not be sold as such.
Of course, the genie is already out of the bottle and unfortunately, for too
many, ignorance is bliss and that not only applies to security but also
doing the necessary prep for updates such as SP2 or worse, for upgrading to
a new operating system.
That said, if users frequent groups such as these, instead of focusing on
all the problems that are posted, they might focus on both the problems and
the responses, many of which would indicate, had the user done the proper
prep in the first place, many would not have had such issues. I recognize
many users feel that places the responsibility on them but that goes back to
the original point about computers not being mass market items.
You're right, people were sold, marketed and otherwise baited and hooked
into buying and that only helps perpetuate the problem. At least if they
make it here, they have a wide user community of potential support.
--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
news:[email protected]...
Of course, the genie is already out of the bottle and unfortunately, for too
many, ignorance is bliss and that not only applies to security but also
doing the necessary prep for updates such as SP2 or worse, for upgrading to
a new operating system.
That said, if users frequent groups such as these, instead of focusing on
all the problems that are posted, they might focus on both the problems and
the responses, many of which would indicate, had the user done the proper
prep in the first place, many would not have had such issues. I recognize
many users feel that places the responsibility on them but that goes back to
the original point about computers not being mass market items.
You're right, people were sold, marketed and otherwise baited and hooked
into buying and that only helps perpetuate the problem. At least if they
make it here, they have a wide user community of potential support.
--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
news:[email protected]...
F
Frank
Charlie said:
I believe it would be more a matter of credit. I could have built
a number of machines for people but it would have to be a
cash on delivery. Any person can go to their local Best buy
and get an inferior computer with a crippled OEM version
of XP for no money down and a small monthly payment.
Microsoft XP will work on any hardware that is up to certain
standards. These corporations do not even stick to the
ATX form factor, let alone any other standards.
Further more I think that it is wrong for people to use a Microsoft
server for questions about Dell, HP, Norton, Zone alarm etc etc.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
"Further more I think that it is wrong for people to use a Microsoft
server for questions about Dell, HP, Norton, Zone alarm etc etc."
Fortunately for a lot of us what you think does not apply.
What you think is not even close to what Microsoft says about these
newsgroups.
server for questions about Dell, HP, Norton, Zone alarm etc etc."
Fortunately for a lot of us what you think does not apply.
What you think is not even close to what Microsoft says about these
newsgroups.
C
CS
Please explain "crippled OEM version" to us. In what way is an OEM
version crippled on a computer that's purchased at Best Buy, CompUSA,
etc? Also, don't you think it's proper to ask questions about XP here
in this forum regardless if it's installed on a Dell, HP, or whatever?
N
Nathan McNulty
I'm not sure who all these Mr and Mrs people are, but my point was that
average users don't know what is ok to install or not to install, or
what is ok to allow through their firewall or not, or any of the like.
We all learn in due time about computers. I am constantly teaching my
family and friends how to use a computer. I never intentionally put
them down because they do something that I wouldn't do. My goal is to
explain to them why it isn't a good idea. That is the way it should be
in the computer world. It is a learning experience and some are further
ahead than others. Those that are ahead help those that aren't and
slowly we bring the computer literacy average up as the computer world
evolves.
average users don't know what is ok to install or not to install, or
what is ok to allow through their firewall or not, or any of the like.
We all learn in due time about computers. I am constantly teaching my
family and friends how to use a computer. I never intentionally put
them down because they do something that I wouldn't do. My goal is to
explain to them why it isn't a good idea. That is the way it should be
in the computer world. It is a learning experience and some are further
ahead than others. Those that are ahead help those that aren't and
slowly we bring the computer literacy average up as the computer world
evolves.
N
Nathan McNulty
I'll answer your questions. There is nothing crippled about an OEM copy
of XP other than that it can't be transfered to a new computer. It is
proper to ask any question relating to Windows which includes software
that is installed on it in these newsgroups assuming you have a
meaningful and valid question. If it has XP on it, this is the place to
recieve support from other people who also use XP. It is that simple.
of XP other than that it can't be transfered to a new computer. It is
proper to ask any question relating to Windows which includes software
that is installed on it in these newsgroups assuming you have a
meaningful and valid question. If it has XP on it, this is the place to
recieve support from other people who also use XP. It is that simple.
N
Nathan McNulty
I agree because what exactly are they going to ask questions about if
they never install anything on the computer? If they have a computer
that comes preloaded with Windows and Office and nothing else and they
never install anything else, they make an extremely small minority. You
wouldn't even get over a couple posts a day from people who fit this
description.
they never install anything on the computer? If they have a computer
that comes preloaded with Windows and Office and nothing else and they
never install anything else, they make an extremely small minority. You
wouldn't even get over a couple posts a day from people who fit this
description.
T
Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)
HiNathan said:
For WinXP Pro, taskkill.exe (and tasklist.exe) comes builtin with the
OS (regardless of service pack level). It does a similar job as PSKill
from SysInternals.
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
I've seen plenty of posts from MVPs that clarify SP2 problems, and
there are some excellent MVP sites on SP2 issues, such as
http://jmfmvps.mvps.org/SP2.htm
I tripped over a particular SP2 issue (Prescott) and have mainly
concentrated on that.
Rather than fuzzy discussions on whether SP2 is generally a good
thing, I see value in predicting which PCs are likely to have problems
before downloading or installing it. SP2 can be very YMMV!
"I think it's time we took our
friendship to the next level"
'What, gender roles and abuse?'
C
cquirke (MVP Win9x)
When we advocate SP2 ("SP2 is now available! Download it and install
it immediately!") we are marketing, ourselves.
Well, we also have to consider *why* one might want SP2. At least
part of SP2 goes about dumbing down some risk-related decisions on the
user's behalf, to the extent of better (more secure) defaults.
That value is greatest for those users who are least likely to
"research what must periodically be done", as you put it ;-)
....entities that grab opportunities handed to them by the software
industry, i.e. scripting and other "active content", and network
services inappropriately embedded in stand-alone PCs.
SP2 represents a U-turn on the "let's give developers and web sites
the tools to do whatever they want to consumers" mindset that created
this situation; to push at least parts of Pandora back in the box.
So IMO, it's a good thing - but it's not the only thing. You may
choose to approach the same endpoint in other ways, from choosing
different software, to applying your own risk management settings, and
adding firewall and av of course.
Assuming you stay with XP, SP2 compliments these approaches in that it
does some things that other things don't do. So it's IMO a good thing
to have, as long as it runs on your PC and either works with what you
are choosing to do, or you are prepared to put in the effort of
adjusting things so that co-exists with what you choose to do.
Most of us aren't choosing to do things that SP2 will break, such as
allowing arbitrary remote sites to initiate network communications.
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...