Windows 2000 Service Packs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill

Gee, Windows 2000 has service packs way up to #4?

Is there an explanation somewhere of what all these service packs do? Is
there a point where a SP increases CPU usage? Is one a Machiavellian
security path?

Thanks

Bill
 
These articles may help.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327194
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;320853
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282522/
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q259524/

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Bill" wrote:
| Gee, Windows 2000 has service packs way up to #4?
|
| Is there an explanation somewhere of what all these service packs do? Is
| there a point where a SP increases CPU usage? Is one a Machiavellian
| security path?
|
| Thanks
|
| Bill
|
|
 
Why would you think it wouldn't be safe?

Tom
| So, you're saying going up to SP4 is safe?
|
|
| | > These articles may help.
| >
| > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327194
| > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;320853
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282522/
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q259524/
| >
| > --
| > Regards,
| >
| > Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
| > Microsoft Certified Professional
| > Microsoft MVP [Windows]
| > http://www.microsoft.com/protect
| >
| > "Bill" wrote:
| > | Gee, Windows 2000 has service packs way up to #4?
| > |
| > | Is there an explanation somewhere of what all these service packs do?
Is
| > | there a point where a SP increases CPU usage? Is one a Machiavellian
| > | security path?
| > |
| > | Thanks
| > |
| > | Bill
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
 
Example: One of the Office 2000 patches, SR-(something), blocked access to
almost all Outlook attachments (which smacks of a Microsoft lawyer thing,
but whatever). This reduced functionality.

Although it's another company, since 2001, Symantec's yearly editions of
SystemWorks have had less and less "Norton" functionality (presumably to
make it easier for less sophisticated users).

The moral of this story is that it's not uncommon for modern updates,
upgrades, and service packs to reduce functionality or introduce problems.

Simply speaking, I just want to be aware of any difficulties, or
(unofficial) incompatibilities, that the Windows 2000 service packs might
cause.

Thanks.


...
 
Given the extreme range of installed software possibilities and myriad
hardware combinations, I'm pretty sure you can understand why there
could be some unforeseen issue.
Example: One of the Office 2000 patches, SR-(something), blocked access to
almost all Outlook attachments (which smacks of a Microsoft lawyer thing,
but whatever). This reduced functionality.

Although it's another company, since 2001, Symantec's yearly editions of
SystemWorks have had less and less "Norton" functionality (presumably to
make it easier for less sophisticated users).

The moral of this story is that it's not uncommon for modern updates,
upgrades, and service packs to reduce functionality or introduce problems.

Simply speaking, I just want to be aware of any difficulties, or
(unofficial) incompatibilities, that the Windows 2000 service packs might
cause.

Thanks.


...
Why would you think it wouldn't be safe?

Tom
...
| So, you're saying going up to SP4 is safe?
|
|
| "Dave Patrick" wrote...
| > These articles may help.
| >
| > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327194
| > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;320853
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q282522/
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q259524/
| >
| > --
| > Regards,
| >
| > Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
| > Microsoft Certified Professional
| > Microsoft MVP [Windows]
| > http://www.microsoft.com/protect
| >
| > "Bill" wrote:
| > | Gee, Windows 2000 has service packs way up to #4?
| > |
| > | Is there an explanation somewhere of what all these service packs
do?

Is
| > | there a point where a SP increases CPU usage? Is one a Machiavellian
| > | security path?
| > |
| > | Thanks
| > |
| > | Bill
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bob I said:
Given the extreme range of installed software possibilities and myriad
hardware combinations, I'm pretty sure you can understand why there
could be some unforeseen issue.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know anything about this.
 
Bob I said:
The question was the equivalent of "Will you get hit by a bus tomorrow?"
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know anything about this, and you are emphasizing
it by using a bad metaphor.

Let me rephrase the issue in a much simpler manner. Is upgrading to a
particular Win2000 service pack, IN AND OF ITSELF, a bad move for reasons of
security, stability, or flexibility.

To repeat my examples, which you seemed to have missed:

# Example: One of the Office 2000 patches, SR-(something), blocked access to
# almost all Outlook attachments (which smacks of a Microsoft lawyer thing,
# but whatever). This reduced functionality.
#
# Although it's another company, since 2001, Symantec's yearly editions of
# SystemWorks have had less and less "Norton" functionality (presumably to
# make it easier for less sophisticated users).
#
# The moral of this story is that it's not uncommon for modern updates,
# upgrades, and service packs to reduce functionality or introduce problems.
#
# Simply speaking, I just want to be aware of any difficulties, or
# (unofficial) incompatibilities, that the Windows 2000 service packs might
# cause.

Is there clear enough for you now?
 
Back
Top