The XP SP2 Horror to come.

The list of programs that will work “differently” after the service
pack 2 has expanded to 200 applications on the eve of the consumer
roll out of the update. (Microsoft's update troubles deepen further)
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=457

Believe it or not... The List includes a lot of MS's own applications
including Office!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130

But what the hell... Bill's still going to release it and let the
public sort it out as usual.

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word
What Microsoft wrote "may behave differently"
What you wrote "will work "differently""

At least to me, there is a significant difference between the words
"may" and "will".
May means just that, you may not have any troubles as many have
reported.

You would make an interesting journalist.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"TR" wrote in message
...
The list of programs that will work "differently" after the service
pack 2 has expanded to 200 applications on the eve of the consumer
roll out of the update. (Microsoft's update troubles deepen further)
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=457

Believe it or not... The List includes a lot of MS's own
applications
including Office!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130

But what the hell... Bill's still going to release it and let the
public sort it out as usual.

Microsoft wrote "may behave differently" to imply that they encountered
anomalous behavior of the program at least under SOME (not all) conditions
running XP2. You or I may or may not encounter the same behavior depending on
how we use such a program? No matter how one parses it or interprets it, 200
programs is a bunch, enough for people to set a restore point before installing
SP2 and then to tread carefully.

Others have stated that SP2 is a major release, despite its service pack
designation. Given past history with Microsoft operating systems, one should go
forward carefully with a major release. Actually, DOS 6.2 was pretty much free
of problems... Ben Myers

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:25 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"
wrote:

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word
What Microsoft wrote "may behave differently"
What you wrote "will work "differently""

At least to me, there is a significant difference between the words
"may" and "will".
May means just that, you may not have any troubles as many have
reported.

You would make an interesting journalist.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"TR" wrote in message
.. .
The list of programs that will work "differently" after the service
pack 2 has expanded to 200 applications on the eve of the consumer
roll out of the update. (Microsoft's update troubles deepen further)
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=457

Believe it or not... The List includes a lot of MS's own
applications
including Office!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130

But what the hell... Bill's still going to release it and let the
public sort it out as usual.

I never heard anyone, at least not someone with any computer
experience, suggest a Service pack is anything but a major release.
Also much of what Microsoft publishes shows Microsoft considers SP-2 a
major release.
Otherwise there would not be near as much information about SP-2.

A restore Point is always a good idea before any major change, not
just Service Packs.
But many use them improperly.
Many are already uninstalling SP-2 at the first sign of trouble
ignoring the possibility there is a simple fix already arranged from
Microsoft or the application or hardware vendor.

So far my experiences are less issues with SP-2 than SP-1
However that depends greatly on the prior maintenance of the computer.

Most problems will have simple fixes.
But I still hear of people formatting the computer Microsoft messed up
because they can no longer get attachments because "OE has removed
access..." after getting a bunch of updates.
The easy but long solution many take is to blame Microsoft and either
format or uninstall which in itself is another major change.
When the correct solution is usually easy to locate.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message
...
Microsoft wrote "may behave differently" to imply that they
encountered
anomalous behavior of the program at least under SOME (not all)
conditions
running XP2. You or I may or may not encounter the same behavior
depending on
how we use such a program? No matter how one parses it or
interprets it, 200
programs is a bunch, enough for people to set a restore point before
installing
SP2 and then to tread carefully.

Others have stated that SP2 is a major release, despite its service
pack
designation. Given past history with Microsoft operating systems,
one should go
forward carefully with a major release. Actually, DOS 6.2 was
pretty much free
of problems... Ben Myers

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:25 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"

wrote:

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word
What Microsoft wrote "may behave differently"
What you wrote "will work "differently""

At least to me, there is a significant difference between the words
"may" and "will".
May means just that, you may not have any troubles as many have
reported.

You would make an interesting journalist.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"TR" wrote in message
. ..
The list of programs that will work "differently" after the
service
pack 2 has expanded to 200 applications on the eve of the consumer
roll out of the update. (Microsoft's update troubles deepen
further)
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=457

Believe it or not... The List includes a lot of MS's own
applications
including Office!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130

But what the hell... Bill's still going to release it and let the
public sort it out as usual.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:25 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"
wrote:

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word
What Microsoft wrote "may behave differently"
What you wrote "will work "differently""

At least to me, there is a significant difference between the words
"may" and "will".
May means just that, you may not have any troubles as many have
reported.

And just like Bill Clinton, you took attention away from the article
in point by debating what the meaning if "is" is.

You would make an interesting journalist.

And you would make a great politician the way you dodge the content
and detour the subject matter away from what you don't like.

BTW, the whole thing was copied and pasted from one of the MS NG's. I
pasted it here because I thought people would be interested in
following the links instead of making a big deal out of what the
meaning of "is" is....

Now back to the actual point of the readings that were supplied in the
links given (if you even read them)......

Sorry if all this steps on your love affair with MS but hey, sorry to
burst your bubble but the profound revolation is.... I didn't code
this mess, I just posted what I had read about the mess. If that
hurts your feelings and you have to resort to detouring away from the
subject by debating the meaning of what "is" is.... then get a job in
politics where you would undoubtedly be a pro.

Tell you what, let the ones interested in the article and links debate
the actual substance and you can create a side bar crying and whining
about what the meaning of "is" is....

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:00:20 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

No matter how one parses it or interprets it, 200
programs is a bunch, enough for people to set a restore point before installing
SP2 and then to tread carefully.

Yes Ben, it did seem to miss that point while debating what the
meaning of "is" is, didn't it...

But you are right that 200 possible is (or should be) a concern. A
lot of my programs are listed there. Some other articles linked to
from the MS NG's stated that a lot of tests had shown that restore
would not take you back to "exactly" the condition you were in before
implementing the upgrade. There were even instances where restore
failed all together resulting in the need for a complete restoration
of the system.

From what I gather by following all the links and articles... most of
the problem is with the firewall in SP2. It seems from what I have
read that turning the firewall off after installation will not get
things back to normal and MS coded this thing to install with the
firewall turned on by default...

Given past history with Microsoft operating systems, one should go
forward carefully with a major release.

Unless you blindly go into it while sidetracked in a discussion about
what the meaning of "is" is.... Sorry, had to throw that in because
people like that are so transparent and funny.... Anyway... you are
right about the history of such companies. But like politicians and
governments, no one learns from history... thus to repeat it.

Now to a MS argument I read about this mess of which also has some
merit to MS's credit.... He said that OS's evolve and programs that
operate under evolving OS's must also evolve along with them in order
to stay compliant (compatible). Okay... I buy that.... BUT! You
don't just throw a new evolution to an OS out there before other major
players have had time to conform their products. Remember, MS's own
Office products are even having compatibility problems with this
release. In other words, MS itself hasn't even had time to make all
its own applications compliant with the new release.

Another link stated that Norton has a fix for their suit of
applications but has put a warning out that you MUST install the fix
before installing SP2 because you can't back up later and make it
work. If you install SP2 and then try to do the FIX, you are dead in
the water and even a "Rollback" will not save you. A complete
restoration of the system will be needed. Problem..... You will only
know this if you visit certain sections of the Symantec site or hear
it second hand.... I think it was about Norton SystemWorks mostly but
do know that my version of NAV2003 will not be compliant and Norton is
only fixing all 2004 versions of their stuff to be compliant. So, if
I install this mess, I would be forced to pay the bucks to move from
NAV 2003 to 2004 when 2003 was working just fine before the SP2
debacle. And that's just one program....

I added up what it would cost me to become compliant with SP2 if all
my application on the list of 200 did in fact fail to work. I quit
counting after seeing the cost of moving from Office Pro 2000 to the
version that will (in the future) be fixed to be compliant with SP2
(it is my understanding that they haven't even started making the
latest Office compliant yet because they don't know why it is having
trouble with SP2).

Which brings up another point.... MS is pushing you, on their upgrade
page, to turn ON automatic download and install of upgrades so you
don't miss getting SP2. In the face of what problems could come of
this installation, I can't believe MS is actually suggesting people
turn their upgrade option to Automatic download and Install.... Well,
as you said... looking at their history... Yes I can!

After all I have read, I think the prudent thing would be to hide and
watch on this one. AND!!!! DO NOT turn on Automatic Download and
Install of Upgrades as suggested by MS. because History shows that MS
doesn't always know what's best.....

Regards,
TR

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:00:20 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

Others have stated that SP2 is a major release, despite its service pack
designation.

From http://channelzone.ziffdavis.com/art...1613230,00.asp

"Microsoft has a history of major releases with understated names, and
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) is no exception."

Regards,
TR

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:54:07 -0400, TR
wrote:

DO NOT turn on Automatic Download and
Install of Upgrades as suggested by MS.

From http://www.teamits.com/start/winxpsp2.php

Warning: Windows XP Service Pack 2
TO: ALL ITS CLIENTS

FROM: Steve, John, Amy, Simon

What follows is a copy of a recent ITS news release you may have seen
suggesting that businesses postpone their download of Microsoft’s
Service Pack 2 security fix for Windows XP, officially named " Windows
XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies." While ITS
applauds the increased security levels available with SP2, the news
release encompasses our concerns about this “fix,” and following is
information regarding specific programs that are known to have issues
with SP2.

Windows XP can be configured to automatically download and install all
"critical updates" from Microsoft, which will include SP2. Below are
instructions for disabling this download. Note this entire issue only
applies to PCs running Windows XP.

View the ITS press release
http://www.teamits.com/start/winxpsp2_pr.php
Small Businesses Urged to Postpone Microsoft XP Security ‘Fix’.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:25 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"
wrote:

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word

From one of the links posted in the message that you indubitably never
followed much less read:

"Now major applications including Microsoft’s own packages will act
differently when the new service pack is installed onto a PC running
Windows XP."

The are called links.... the way it works is that you follow them.
But then, you have to read them also. Now, if you did the first two
things, and by a small twist of fate, you comprehend what you were
suppose to follow and read, then you would see where the actual source
of what was said came from and you wouldn't have made such a
blundering ass out of yourself.....

You now find it necessary to be insulting because I see a difference
in "will" & "may".
I didn't "dodge" anything, I pointed out the bias in your post.
The same type of bias found many places with a bias against Microsoft.

Your excuse "copied and pasted from one of the MS NG's" shows little
validity on your part.
Quotes are normally appropriate if you desire others to know it is not
your own.
Quotes around one word does not say much in this case especially when
no reference is given.

I have read the articles, that is why I noticed the obvious error, how
did you miss the error?
If you think "will" is the same as "may", fine, but by posting, you
invite comments and then cry and insult when you get a correction.
Once you read the articles and do a little more research you may
discover that many computers have no issues at all so "may" as used is
correct.
This newsgroup as many others is not exclusively for your bias, you
invited comments and you got one.

You also have this in another post:
"From http://channelzone.ziffdavis.com/art...1613230,00.asp
"Microsoft has a history of major releases with understated names, and
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) is no exception." "
Where does Microsoft state SP-2 is not a major release?
I doubt it is said anywhere...except by Microsoft critics.
Microsoft would probably not publish so much about a minor release.

The fact you need to insult as well as make irrelevant comparisons to
Clinton is further evidence of your true position.
So it seems anyone that disagrees with you has a "love affair with MS"
and needs to be beaten by you so that you can prove you are correct.
It fails miserably unless you wanted to show this ego need of yours.

Perhaps if you could stick to facts, you could have something
worthwhile to say, but apparently your facts are insults.

Good bye TR, You clearly have little of value to pass on about this
subject.
Don't bother posting back unless you are actually posting to others.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"TR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:02:25 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"
wrote:

Interesting how you changed the meaning of Microsoft's article by
changing just one little word
What Microsoft wrote "may behave differently"
What you wrote "will work "differently""

At least to me, there is a significant difference between the words
"may" and "will".
May means just that, you may not have any troubles as many have
reported.

And just like Bill Clinton, you took attention away from the article
in point by debating what the meaning if "is" is.

You would make an interesting journalist.

And you would make a great politician the way you dodge the content
and detour the subject matter away from what you don't like.

BTW, the whole thing was copied and pasted from one of the MS NG's.
I
pasted it here because I thought people would be interested in
following the links instead of making a big deal out of what the
meaning of "is" is....

Now back to the actual point of the readings that were supplied in
the
links given (if you even read them)......

Sorry if all this steps on your love affair with MS but hey, sorry
to
burst your bubble but the profound revolation is.... I didn't code
this mess, I just posted what I had read about the mess. If that
hurts your feelings and you have to resort to detouring away from
the
subject by debating the meaning of what "is" is.... then get a job
in
politics where you would undoubtedly be a pro.

Tell you what, let the ones interested in the article and links
debate
the actual substance and you can create a side bar crying and
whining
about what the meaning of "is" is....