Re: SP2 is killing me. Help?

[ktabic <lists () ktabic co uk>]

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 10:33 -0300, James Tucker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:52:53 +0000, ktabic <lists () ktabic co uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 15:54 -0500, Ron DuFresne wrote:
> > > Ahh, but this was an error on your end sir, M$ has always advised that
> > > patching or adding apps to the system should be done with everything
> > > closed, and in most cases users are best served to reboot and patch/add
> > > apps prior to doing anything but logging into the system.  sure, most of
> > > the time many of the warnings about closing other applications and such
> > > can be ignored, but, with major patches like this, one should verge on the
> > > order of most caution.
> >
> > Hmm, ok. So you should never have anything open?
> > Automatic updates has the option to have it download and install the
> > updates in the background, while you work.
> > Still, I suppose never using the system would improve the stability.
> > Also, once this hits Window Updates (this targetted at the people
> > saying: read the relase notes), how many are going to?
> > The answer is not: 'Well they should do!!!'
> > For that matter, how many are even going to realise that it's a service
> > pack?
> Once again, your response clearly shows that you are unable to read
> instructions presented to you on the screen. If you are illiterate or
> just plain stubborn please don't blame Microsoft for it. Your response
> was written as if to be sensational but frankly it was just annoying.
> "Still, I suppose never using the system would improve the stability."
> was quite unnecessary.

Once again?
Maybe you should learn to read properly as well, since this is my first
post to this thread. 
Oh, and that was humour, as well as being quite true as well.
> When Windows Update downloads updates in the background it simply
> downloads the DATA in the background. If the install will require a
> reboot, or requires modules to be replaced which cannot be as they are
> in use then a window will pop up with the installer wizard for that
> patch. In that wizard window, the first page clearly states "please
> close all running applications before continuing setup". Is this
> message not clear?

Yes, yes, yes, very clever. Guess what, I knew that already. See above.
If you have quite understood, most (most, not all) of my post was
humour.
> Clean windows installations will not break during SP2 upgrade. SP2 has
> been tested for months now, and that testing did not cease
> prematurely. Personally I have yet to see a SP2 upgrade fail, although
> I am sure it happens, high complexity systems never recieve changes
> gracefully in every situation; however it is not the SP which causes
> the issue, but bad coding in 3rd party apps. The other most common
> problem is the one responded to above where you "computer experts"
> simply refuse to read the instructions put in front of them, out of
> either impatience or arrogance. Frankly that's ridiculous. Learn to
> RTFM.
Of course, that presumes that you have a clean install of XP to upgrade
to SP2. Many do not. Many people at home will not either.
Oh, and apparently one guy (iirc on the sans site) had problems with SP2
on to a fresh install of XP.If it's true, it's more than likly a
hardware issue, but doesn't counter the problem.

> Oh, and you *nix users who claim that *nix is better, please take note
> of the amount you have to read and reconfigure when a major update is
> released which you choose to install. It is not as menial a task as
> you try to suggest most of the time. In fact there are many updates
> for alot of common *nix software which require all sorts of upgrades
> all over the place. The fact that the O.S. community have no
> obligation for backward compatibility actually causes a large
> proportion of the software to have issues. MS has the best backward
> compatability (for binaries, it does not count if you simply recompile
> the app on a new os, if you dont know why then dont bother responding
> to this thread) of any OS, in terms of fully featured support; and we
> all know how bad theirs can be when you try and load a badly written
> 9x app on an xp box.

Well, when I upgrade my nix box, I don't have to modify anything, most
of the time. But that is, I will admit, unusual.
And as for backwards compatibility, OSS software generally doesn't have
to worry about backwards compatibility, the source is advailble, so most
of the time it's possible to make it work. Oh, and I find wine on linux
offers better than M$, for my needs.

> For an end user upgrading to SP2 via Windows Update, for the most part
> the upgrade will actually work flawlessly. The secuirty center window
> will pop up explaining what is new. The firewalls default rules allow
> the local subnet access to network services, when people have common
> questions about "why does lan filesharing no longer work?" the answer
> is available in the help. Have you ever looked in the help? It's not
> as useless as you assume. End-users should be pushed to use the help
> more frequently, as it does cut down on support calls. Several users
> who commonly called for support have ceased ever calling except in the
> most drastic of situations, and are becoming very competent Windows
> users now.
I do not disagree with making users use the help more. But seeing as how
home users will have much much more varied setups than anyone, plus very
strong desires to use old programs and games, I, personally, forsee a
large amount of problems coming up. It isn't what I want, I want people
to get rid of the irritating software, but it won't happen because you,
me or Microsoft tell them to.

> Please try not to be so rediculous in future. If the world was as bad
> as you seem to describe then MS would not have nearly so much money as
> they do.
Personally, the fact that M$, amongst others, have as much money as they
do is an indicator that the world is at least as bad as I think, and
probably exceeds that level.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html