The XP SP2 Horror to come.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:42:21 GMT, "Jupiter Jones"
wrote:

I insult because you don't know how to follow a simple link which was
PROVIDED in order to see and read and comprehend that what you blamed
me of saying was in fact what I was conveying from the link that
someone else had said. That's why the link was provided... DUH! So,
until you understand how following links works, don't stick your foot
in your mouth next time. Best way I know of how to keep from being
"Insulted". Read (and try to understand) all you are provided before
running off at the mouth....

If that is too complicated for you... lets go over it one more time.

Someone provides information they read on the Internet. Along with
that, they provide the links to where they got the information. Now,
as the reader, you are suppose to poses the intelligence to follow the
link in order to confirm that what the writer is telling you was said,
was in fact what was said. Now, if you disagree with what was said,
then you go to the person provided in the link as the original author
and have your little spat with them, NOT the one that was simply
conveying what was said/written by another as confirmed by the link
provided.

Now, if that is still over your head as to how it works... I'm sorry
because I can't make it any simpler for you. Maybe have your Mommy
try to explain it to you cause I don't have the patience for your
stupidity in such a simple thing as following the link provided to
confirm who really said what and who was just the messenger of what
was said.

What an idiot!

Even Microsoft Outlook Express has a bug with the SP2 update. If an email
has a URL (link) in
it, the color of it will always be "BLUE" meaning that the site is not in
your history file. If you do a "FORWARD" or "REPLY" of that email and you
have been to that site before and it is still in your history file the color
of the URL (link) will be "MAROON" (Standard default colors). The color
shown of a URL link worked correctly before the SP2 update. I noticed it
also did not work in the RC1 release. I did a re-install of XP Home after
the RC1 release and waited for the SP2 release.

I have been in contact with Microsoft Support and they are looking into it.
Support is not sure if it is a design change or a "BUG".

"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.

The links you gave in your message were evident to me tr and I also
appreciate you bringing this to my attention because I had no idea
there was a problem and had done as microsoft had suggested by putting
my computer on automatic for the upgrade. I reversed that.

One word of advice though tr, even though most people understand how
links work and that anyone following the links you gave would see
immediately that you were writing what the person in the link had
said, you must show patience for those that don't understand how links
work. I can understand how one could loose their temper with those
but a gentler approach at educating them might bear more fruit in the
end.

Again, thanks for posting all this information on this sp2 and the
problems that seem to surround it. It looks as thought microsoft
wasn't going to make any statements about the problems before an
unknowing population installed the darned thing.

You know, I think I am starting to distrust them. Millie

Millie;
Looking back I see where I missed something.
In his second post he said "BTW, the whole thing was copied and pasted
from one of the MS NG's..."
From then I was thinking the original statement was from the newsgroup
post.
But by that time his insults were flying fast.

Articles like that are bad journalism.
The writer changed a small word which significantly changed the
meaning from the source document without justifying their change.

By changing the word, the writer has unjustifiably increased the
paranoia about something many need to do at some point.

I learned a long time ago that when a person feels the need to shore
up the position with name calling and anger, the strength of their
point of view has already been exhausted.
I have said as much whether the person supported my point of view or
not.
Anger and name calling typically hurts the one using it more than
anyone else, it certainly does nothing to me.

Lastly, directly and indirectly I have posted that link and several
more directly related to SP-2 more than 50 times since his first post
on this subject yesterday, easily more than 300 times since I
installed SP-2 on 9 August.

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


"Millie" wrote in message
om...
The links you gave in your message were evident to me tr and I also
appreciate you bringing this to my attention because I had no idea
there was a problem and had done as microsoft had suggested by
putting
my computer on automatic for the upgrade. I reversed that.

One word of advice though tr, even though most people understand how
links work and that anyone following the links you gave would see
immediately that you were writing what the person in the link had
said, you must show patience for those that don't understand how
links
work. I can understand how one could loose their temper with those
but a gentler approach at educating them might bear more fruit in
the
end.

Again, thanks for posting all this information on this sp2 and the
problems that seem to surround it. It looks as thought microsoft
wasn't going to make any statements about the problems before an
unknowing population installed the darned thing.

You know, I think I am starting to distrust them. Millie

Well said Jupiter.

--
"Hurricane" Andrew
Milford, DE

Jupiter Jones wrote:
Millie;
Looking back I see where I missed something.
In his second post he said "BTW, the whole thing was copied and pasted
from one of the MS NG's..."
From then I was thinking the original statement was from the newsgroup
post.
But by that time his insults were flying fast.

Articles like that are bad journalism.
The writer changed a small word which significantly changed the
meaning from the source document without justifying their change.

By changing the word, the writer has unjustifiably increased the
paranoia about something many need to do at some point.

I learned a long time ago that when a person feels the need to shore
up the position with name calling and anger, the strength of their
point of view has already been exhausted.
I have said as much whether the person supported my point of view or
not.
Anger and name calling typically hurts the one using it more than
anyone else, it certainly does nothing to me.

Lastly, directly and indirectly I have posted that link and several
more directly related to SP-2 more than 50 times since his first post
on this subject yesterday, easily more than 300 times since I
installed SP-2 on 9 August.

On 18 Aug 2004 18:03:23 -0700, (Millie) wrote:

The links you gave in your message were evident to me tr

Glad to hear that. They were hard to miss weren't they (all colored
differently, underlined and with a big fat http:// sitting at the
front)?

appreciate you bringing this to my attention because I had no idea
there was a problem and had done as microsoft had suggested by putting
my computer on automatic for the upgrade. I reversed that.

That was the purpose of the original post and of course, the original
links so the attuned could see that this was NOT original to me but
was being posted around the Internet by others and posted on certain
PC publications. Of course, the link clueless took attention away
from the purpose of the post and got into a semantic thing with a
person that was nothing more than the messenger of what was being said
and posted around the web.

One word of advice though tr, even though most people understand how
links work and that anyone following the links you gave would see
immediately that you were writing what the person in the link had
said

Yep, sort of stuck right there in the open for anyone with a clue to
see and follow.

you must show patience for those that don't understand how links
work.

Patience toward those that don't react falsely because of not having a
clue to how links work is fine but when they react and post falsely
because of not having a clue as to how to follow the links PROVIDED
for conformation of/from the source of what was said.... then they
need to be insulted. I have no tolerance for those types what so
ever.

Again, thanks for posting all this information on this sp2 and the
problems that seem to surround it. It looks as thought microsoft
wasn't going to make any statements about the problems before an
unknowing population installed the darned thing.

They do have a history of doing such... I see that today my
auto-update warning told me that SP2 was ready for download. Of
course, due to MS's sorted history, I am going to hide and watch
before jumping on this one. Maybe wait for SP2.12345 to come out and
that list of 200 non-compatibles to go down (grin).

You know, I think I am starting to distrust them. Millie

They don't have a track record supportive of trusting do they?

I did read on the ZoneLabs Forum (makers of Zone Alarm Firewall), that
some suggest downloading SP2 but NOT to install it yet. Then
disconnect from online and halt all firewalls, AV's, PopUp blockers,
Ad/Spyware watchers and other background processes going on. Next,
install sp2t and then turn off all its features. Then reconnect to
online and reboot.

Well, why install it in the first place if you are going to do it that
way? I'm not the smartest guy in town even though I do know how and
when to follow a provided link, but this seems to be canceling the
purpose of installing it in the first place.

Following some other forums this morning, I see that there are those
that let it install and have seen no negative side effects what so
ever from it while others are reporting everything from a single
application going down to whole systems going down. One of my
engineers said he just got off the phone with a friend that said their
AutoCad went down after installing SP2 while another office running
the same version of AutoCad is doing fine after the SP2 install.

I guess that's what scares me the most about this thing.... It would
appear from what I am reading that no one, not even MS knows what the
effects will be on any single or collective set of systems or
applications. Why does A's Widget program go down while B's Widget
program is un effected?

I think what is going on.... AND... this is what I am saying so those
Link Challenged types out there can actually flame me for what I say
from this spot forward because it is '*** What I Think ***'.... I
think MS has been under such pressure to finally do something about
all their security holes that they have "Rushed" to release what they
perceive to be the fix or all fixes, SP2, before it has been
thoroughly tested and before a lot of questions about all these
application clashes with it have been properly addressed.

Regards,
TR

See below...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:32:17 -0400, TR wrote:

SNIP
Glad to hear that. They were hard to miss weren't they (all colored
differently, underlined and with a big fat http:// sitting at the
front)?

Um, some of us still adhere to the usenet text-only conventions, which guarantee
that any news reader can read a news item. The prettied up text outlining the
URL just does not show up in some news readers, mine included. But I have
learned to read key words like http:// .

SNIP #2

I guess that's what scares me the most about this thing.... It would
appear from what I am reading that no one, not even MS knows what the
effects will be on any single or collective set of systems or
applications. Why does A's Widget program go down while B's Widget
program is un effected?

Yes! Yes! Yes! Been that way since Windows 95 hit the streets, and the
ever-more-complex and inscrutable Windows environment has left Micro$oft more
clueless.


I think what is going on.... AND... this is what I am saying so those
Link Challenged types out there can actually flame me for what I say
from this spot forward because it is '*** What I Think ***'.... I
think MS has been under such pressure to finally do something about
all their security holes that they have "Rushed" to release what they
perceive to be the fix or all fixes, SP2, before it has been
thoroughly tested and before a lot of questions about all these
application clashes with it have been properly addressed.

You betcha. They rushed this one to market, just like all the others were
rushed to market... Ben Myers



Regards,
TR

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:23:12 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

But I have
learned to read key words like http:// .

That's why I always make a "rich text" link also show as the "Plain
Text" characterization of the actual link so everyone can see it one
way or the other (click on it or copy & paste it).

and the
ever-more-complex and inscrutable Windows environment has left Micro$oft more
clueless.

Ever hear the term "Running on a Hope and a Prayer"? Just trying to
keep the whole conglomerate afloat until everyone can cash in and hit
the sunny beaches of Island-Retire.

They rushed this one to market, just like all the others were
rushed to market

Just got back from a visit to the people that made my latest computer.
Besides from making custom systems to order, they also offer three
house units already made up in three different colors (9 systems in
all) which are sitting proudly in their store front window.

Around noon, he said he decided to go on and upgrade all nine to SP2.
Good for 7 so far, questionable for 1 and very bad for 1. One lost
all control over NAV2004, giving errors on bootup and refusing to open
NAV to check configuration. A clean uninstall of NAV2004 did not keep
the bootup errors from popping up even though the system would boot
just without any virus protection. Then the worse case was the one
that would not boot back up after the installation. It locks dead up
between the time the XP splash screen goes off and the desktop image
comes up (during the brief moment of black between the two). No error
messages. He said they are going through the error logs on C: after
booting in safe mode but have found nothing as to why this has
happened. He said they will probably have to do a full restoration
and try to do the SP2 again and see because the XP restore would not
get it back to where it was before the upgrade for some reason.

So.... you tell me.... out of the nine computers, you got three sets
of three computers that are identical in every way except for color of
case and one computer of the single sets of three bombs while the
other two of the same set doesn't upon installation of SP2.

Regards,
TR

The XP SP2 Horror to come.
You betcha. They rushed this one to market, just like all the others were
rushed to market... Ben Myers


You can't bitch too bad about the perfidy of Microsoft, because there
are other software options out there. It's not like they actually have
a monopoly. You could get off your lazy fat ass and learn to use a
real operating system.

The real operating system being??? How about the operating system I WROTE from
scratch for the GE-225 computer back in the mid-1960's? Instead of reading all
programs from punched cards as done previously, it loaded programs from a hard
disk the size of a pizza oven, with TWO refrigerator-sized controllers to handle
the disk. Is that real enough for you?

I hate to put some reality into your head, but the operating system is NOT the
reason for people making the choices they do in this millenium. The SOFTWARE
APPLICATIONS are what drives people to choose computer and operating system,
because people actually use software applications programs to do real work..

Microsoft Office has 90% of the office productivitiy marketplace. Show me an
operating system that can run Microsoft Office XP and that's the operating
system people will buy. Oops! The only answer is Windows XP. Microsoft
actually DOES have a monopoly. The US Dept of Justice found that Microsoft has
a monopoly, but the Bush administration dropped the ball. Mario Monti's
European Union anti-trust unit has also found Microsoft guilty of monopolistic
practices, and Microsoft is fighting that one like mad. If you go back as long
as I do in this business, you, too, would be able to tell true stories of how
Microsoft built its monopoly, putting other companies out of business with sharp
practices.

Thank you for your opinion, troll... Ben Myers

On 19 Aug 2004 18:22:40 -0700, (Sam Byrams) wrote:

The XP SP2 Horror to come.
You betcha. They rushed this one to market, just like all the others were
rushed to market... Ben Myers


You can't bitch too bad about the perfidy of Microsoft, because there
are other software options out there. It's not like they actually have
a monopoly. You could get off your lazy fat ass and learn to use a
real operating system.