window xp service pack 3

[Ken Blake, MVP]

There is no "zero" even when the software goes gold.

That's what *I* said: "The risk is always there, even if it's not
pre-release software. But it's considerably greater when it's
pre-release."

Microsoft has proven that hundreds of times.

As has every other software vendor. Perfect software, except for the
trivial "Hello World" variety, is not possible.

Nevertheless, when the software is released, the risk is at a lower
level than before release.

 

[Xandros]

That's what *I* said: "The risk is always there, even if it's not
pre-release software. But it's considerably greater when it's
pre-release."




As has every other software vendor. Perfect software, except for the
trivial "Hello World" variety, is not possible.

Nevertheless, when the software is released, the risk is at a lower
level than before release.

Microsoft has released some pretty buggy "finished products". I am inclined
to think that it is just as possible that a release candidate might be more
stable than an RTM. I think you may want to revise your position Ken to
include that one should never install a new release from Microsoft until it
has been thoroughly tested in the real world for at least 6 months or
longer.

 

[inkleputDEL]

I disagree, and strongly. The risk is always there, even if it's not
pre-release software. But it's considerably greater when it's
pre-release.

I'm not claiming that it's likely, but that the risk exists. There is no
reason for the average person to run such a risk, and other than the
exception I mentioned above, doing so is just looking for trouble.

I'm curious about a subject I've never seen encouraging repies to. It
would make a lot of sense to me if you were able to clone a drive so you
could just pull the trashed one and drop in the pre-trash clone. I did
that a couple times on another OS. Such a process would be excellent for
moving a system to a larger hard drive. But it appears from what I've
read that M$ has provided serious blocks to such easy solutions. Is that
true?

JimL

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I'm curious about a subject I've never seen encouraging repies to.
It would make a lot of sense to me if you were able to clone a
drive so you could just pull the trashed one and drop in the
pre-trash clone. I did that a couple times on another OS. Such a
process would be excellent for moving a system to a larger hard
drive. But it appears from what I've read that M$ has provided
serious blocks to such easy solutions. Is that true?

I have many times made an image (using ghost, trueimage, bootitng, etc) of a
Windows XP or Vista system and then, later, the hard disk drive died. I
ordered/received and replaced the malfunctioning drive, applied the image
and it was back to the point it was when I made the image.

I have also had machines with drives reporting they were about to fail and
performed the same process - with not even a hiccup when the new drive was
put into the machine.

Sometimes - in those cases - the drive was a different size (most of the
time larger - sometimes smaller) than the original.

 

[Xandros]

I'm curious about a subject I've never seen encouraging repies to. It
would make a lot of sense to me if you were able to clone a drive so you
could just pull the trashed one and drop in the pre-trash clone. I did
that a couple times on another OS. Such a process would be excellent for
moving a system to a larger hard drive. But it appears from what I've
read that M$ has provided serious blocks to such easy solutions. Is that
true?

JimL

What you are mentioning is common practice. Many people use drive cloning
tools. I use Acronis TrueImage now but have used many other such tools in
the past. Microsoft does not block the practice and if anything advocates
doing this. However if a person has made multiple changes to their hardware
over time they might be confronted with the need to re-activate Windows XP.
This is very simple. It might involve a phone call to the Microsoft
Activation Center to get a key code but that is generally quite painless
unless one is hearing or mobility challenged.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Microsoft has released some pretty buggy "finished products". I am inclined
to think that it is just as possible that a release candidate might be more
stable than an RTM. I think you may want to revise your position Ken to
include that one should never install a new release from Microsoft until it
has been thoroughly tested in the real world for at least 6 months or
longer.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Microsoft has released some pretty buggy "finished products". I am inclined
to think that it is just as possible that a release candidate might be more
stable than an RTM.

You are entitled to that view, or any other one you choose to espouse.
It's not my view at all. Although what you suggest is theoretically
possible, in my view it's so unlikely that for all practical purposes,
the possibility can be safely ignored.

I think you may want to revise your position Ken to
include that one should never install a new release from Microsoft until it
has been thoroughly tested in the real world for at least 6 months or
longer.

No thank you. That's not my position at all, for several reasons:

1. Although there are undoubtedly buggy "finished products" released,
Microsoft is no worse in this regard than other software vendors. In
fact, they are better than most.

2. Although the longer you wait to install a software product (again,
from any manufacturer), the more likely it is that fixes have been
released to make it less buggy, there is nothing special about a
period of six months. Why not five months? Nine months? Or 13.72
months? Any period you pick is arbitrary. The only way to ensure it's
at a minimum level of buggines is to wait forever, and that doesn't
get you the product at all.

3. My experience with released software from the major manufacturers
(including Microsoft, but not limited to them), is that when they
release software, it's generally pretty good, with a small number of
problems. That doesn't mean it's perfect; no software is perfect.
Moreover, as the years go by, I think Quality Assurance people at the
major manufacturers are doing a better and better job, and released
software gets better and better with each release. As a single example
of this, my experience with Windows Vista, which I've been running
since RTM in November 2006, is that it's been completely stable, and
has caused me no problems at all.

So when Windows XP SP1 is released in the next few weeks, I will put
it on my computers that run Windows XP, and will *not* wait six
months.

Is it possible that doing so can cause me a problem? Yes, of course.

Do I expect it to? No, and that's why I'll install it without waiting.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm curious about a subject I've never seen encouraging repies to. It
would make a lot of sense to me if you were able to clone a drive so you
could just pull the trashed one and drop in the pre-trash clone. I did
that a couple times on another OS. Such a process would be excellent for
moving a system to a larger hard drive. But it appears from what I've
read that M$ has provided serious blocks to such easy solutions. Is that
true?

Blocks? No, it's not at all true. Microsoft doesn't provide software
to do this, but there are several third-party programs that do a good
job of this, such as the excellent Acronis True Image. It's an
excellent way to do regular backups of your drive, and an especially
good precaution to take if you do do something like installing a
pre-release version of an operating system service pack.

 

[Xandros]

You are entitled to that view, or any other one you choose to espouse.
It's not my view at all. Although what you suggest is theoretically
possible, in my view it's so unlikely that for all practical purposes,
the possibility can be safely ignored.




No thank you. That's not my position at all, for several reasons:

1. Although there are undoubtedly buggy "finished products" released,
Microsoft is no worse in this regard than other software vendors. In
fact, they are better than most.

2. Although the longer you wait to install a software product (again,
from any manufacturer), the more likely it is that fixes have been
released to make it less buggy, there is nothing special about a
period of six months. Why not five months? Nine months? Or 13.72
months? Any period you pick is arbitrary. The only way to ensure it's
at a minimum level of buggines is to wait forever, and that doesn't
get you the product at all.

3. My experience with released software from the major manufacturers
(including Microsoft, but not limited to them), is that when they
release software, it's generally pretty good, with a small number of
problems. That doesn't mean it's perfect; no software is perfect.
Moreover, as the years go by, I think Quality Assurance people at the
major manufacturers are doing a better and better job, and released
software gets better and better with each release. As a single example
of this, my experience with Windows Vista, which I've been running
since RTM in November 2006, is that it's been completely stable, and
has caused me no problems at all.

So when Windows XP SP1 is released in the next few weeks, I will put
it on my computers that run Windows XP, and will *not* wait six
months.

Is it possible that doing so can cause me a problem? Yes, of course.

Do I expect it to? No, and that's why I'll install it without waiting.

I am in awe.