XP SP-2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick & Darlene
  • Start date Start date
I've had it since the public beta. I now have it on my two desktops & one
laptop. No issues beyond having to update Norton.

Do a good backup & smoke test it!
 
I downloaded and installed SP2 on 2 different systems..on the A7N8X del ver 2.0
it installed without a hitch and after 2 reboots finally started the way it
should.have not really noticed any difference in performance just some pesky
security settings.I use Zone Alarm so I shut the XP firewall off and I dont like
to let XP do automatic updates so I shut that feature down.
On my older Epox MOBO system it screwed everything up royally.I finally lost
patience and just reformatted the system.Then reinstalled XP,then install SP2
and all went well from there.Reinstalled all applications and now everything is
running fine.No idea as to what went wrong.
In both instances I followed the instructions to the letter.And even though they
are networked I installed into each seperately.
peter
 
Steve and Peter,

I have three home/office computers running XP Home and one laptop running XP
Pro. Should I download SP2 from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...BE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en

Halfway down the page it says:
DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more
appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update. To receive
this download, turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to
receive an optimized download of SP2. Please visit Protect Your PC for more
information on receiving Windows XP SP2.

All my PCs are connected via a network, so it seems more efficient to
download SP2 once and copy the installation file to the other PCs rather
than run Windows Update four times.

What do you think? Am I asking for trouble downloading the installation
file that is supposedly for IT professionals only? (I am definitely not an
IT professional.)

Thanks!

John
 
John said:
Steve and Peter,

I have three home/office computers running XP Home and one laptop running XP
Pro. Should I download SP2 from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...BE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en

Halfway down the page it says:
DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more
appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update. To receive
this download, turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to
receive an optimized download of SP2. Please visit Protect Your PC for more
information on receiving Windows XP SP2.

All my PCs are connected via a network, so it seems more efficient to
download SP2 once and copy the installation file to the other PCs rather
than run Windows Update four times.

What do you think? Am I asking for trouble downloading the installation
file that is supposedly for IT professionals only? (I am definitely not an
IT professional.)

Thanks!

John
Click to expand...
I downloaded the huge copy, it makes for a better slipstream, in case I
have to re-install any stations.

Oh, and just FYI, it b0rks NERO Ultra Edition, I had to download an
update to make it work again (how does firewalling and DEP affect a burner?)
 
Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?

Rick
Click to expand...

It has reduced performance on two systems of mine (noticably, but not
tremendously).

I turned the firewall off since I have a NAT gateway that only lets
limited traffic through anyway.
 
singha_lvr said:
It has reduced performance on two systems of mine (noticably, but not
tremendously).

I turned the firewall off since I have a NAT gateway that only lets
limited traffic through anyway.
Click to expand...

You should be running other software firewall software in that case as a NAT
gateway only stops incoming traffic.
 
IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that they
had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for their
own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that testing.
Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was a
pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for slating
all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for them
and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
statement referred to.

Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is not
very long at all.

"The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
apps."
_______________________________________________________________
How many MS Windows Apps are there?

I think the answer to the above equation is very close to ZERO. If you cross
reference the above supposed LONG list with the list of software products
that need firewall configuration (Q842242) , you will find there are
specific issues and fixes for many of them.

You need to do a little bit more research.

I get seriously pissed off when something good comes along such as SP2 and
uninformed people regurgitate erroneously and out of context often
misreported information that has little if any bearing on reality. The
reality is that daily many many thousands of people are deploying SP2
without issue. The biggest single source of problems would be systems that
are already stuffed with virii and worms. Quite frankly I think it is
downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D has
that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack which
will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.

- Tim
 
Onya Tim.

Perhaps you should read what I actually said. If you have had a good
experience then good on you. Did you actually do any research yourself? I
can see that you didn't. So you are saying that a fix pack from in this case
Microsoft should be tested for months to make sure it is okay to use. I am
sorry I can't do that. It ****ed one of my machines and I am not happy. You
are, great.
 
Tim said:
IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that they
had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for their
own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that testing.
Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was a
pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for slating
all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for them
and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
statement referred to.

Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is not
very long at all.

"The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
apps."
______
Click to expand...

Encarta Enzyklopädie 2002 Microsoft
Age of Empires II: Age of Kings --- Microsoft
Application Center 2000 SP2 --- Microsoft
BizTalk 2004 --- Microsoft
CMS 2001 Microsoft
Combat Flight Simulator 3 1 Microsoft
Excel 2003 Microsoft
Halo Combat Evolved (Arabic and Hebrew) Trial Microsoft
MapPoint Europe 2004 Microsoft
Microsoft Operations Manager 2000 SP1 Microsoft
MS License 3.7 Microsoft
MSBN --- Microsoft
MSN 7.02 Microsoft
MSN 9 QFE1 and 9.1 beta 9 Microsoft
Office 11 Microsoft
Office - Power Point 2002 (German) 2002 Microsoft
Office Access 2002 2002 Microsoft
Office System - Power Point 2003 Microsoft
Office XP Access 10 Microsoft
Office XP Professional Excel 10.0 SP2 --- Microsoft
Office XP SP2 - PowerPoint 11 Microsoft
Office XP Standard 10 Microsoft
Outlook 2000 9 Microsoft
Outlook 2002 10 Microsoft
Outlook 2003 11 Microsoft
Outlook Web Access x Microsoft
Revenge of Arcade v1.0 Microsoft
Server Administrator Tools --- Microsoft
SMS 2.0 SP5 Microsoft
SMS 2.0 SP5 Microsoft
SMS 2003 RC2 Microsoft
SMS 2003 RTM Microsoft
SMS --- Microsoft
SNA Server 4.0 SP4 --- Microsoft
SQL --- Microsoft
SQL 7 Microsoft
SQL 2000a SP3 Microsoft
TaxSaver 1999 Microsoft
Virtual PC 2004 Microsoft
Visual Basic 6 Microsoft
Visual C++ (16-bit) 2 Microsoft
Visual Studio 7 Microsoft
Visual Studio 97 Microsoft
Visual Studio .NET Enterprise 2003 --- Microsoft
Visual Studio 98 6 Microsoft
Windows Sharepoint Services 2 Microsoft
Windows Sharepoint Services --- Microsoft
Word XP Microsoft
Works Suite 2004 2004 Microsoft
WSS 2 Microsoft



_________________________________________________________
 
Tim said:
Quite frankly I think it is
downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D has
that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack which
will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.

- Tim
Click to expand...


Pahaha, poor Timmy has to jump up everytime someone slags Microshaft's
dis-service pack.

Face it Tim, if those ****wits at MS had of coded a proper OS at the
start, the Internet wouldn't be bogged down with all these viruses and spam.

There /ARE/ a large list of applications and /many/ of them are
Microsoft software, so get it through your head that just like /EVERY/
other Service pack they have released, it has /NOT/ been tested properly
and /will/ break some machines.

And for the users who want to install something that will far more
effectively protect them from virus writers and security flaws?

www.linux.org
 
Yes, it's been out for over a week (came out last Tuesday). You can get
it here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...BE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en

In my opinion, the update itself is near perfect and bug free.
Basically all of the issues fall into one of two categories:

1. The firewall blocks ports needed by some applications. However it's
easy to unblock them, and they are unblocked only for that application.

2. A few -- very few -- programs truly have issues, but from what I've
seen, the bugs are in those programs, not the service pack, and updates
for those programs are being released very, very quickly (most are
already out).

The link above is to the FULL SP2 update. It's bigger than most people
will need, but it is the final "gold" release. What's not out yet are
both various distribution channels (e.g. you can't get the update
"delivered" via Windows Update -- yet), and the "breakdown" smaller
versions of the service pack for only specific versions of Windows (only
Home, only Pro, only Tablet PC, only Media PC, etc.). However the link
above has EVERYTHING, and will update an original Windows XP (without
even SP1) to SP2 with every security patch and update (including
DirectX, Windows Media Player and IE) as of last week. It also works
for any version of Windows that had been fully or partially updated. In
short, it's the one you want when you want the very best [all of the
scary "network and system administrator only" warnings at the microsoft
downloage page above not withstanding].
 
If it screwed up one of your machines and not another one, has it
occured to you that the problem might be in the machine that got screwed up?
 
I can only tell what happened to me...I used that version and installed it
seperately on 2 networked computers...one was fine the other was not.The version
that will be on the XP update site will not be as large ....as it will see what
you have and then only update what you are missing....but I wanted a copy to
keep for future use.
I believe the failure rate is very very small if you follow most of the
instructions.Something on my 2nd system did not agree with SP2..maybe my
overclock...maybe the version of ZoneAlarm I was running...who knows.
I would download it again from that site if needed ..it doesn't matter if you
are installing for a network or stand alone system.
peter
 
Back
Top