XP & SP 1 why waste your time.
ps
it's needed. I've noticed from scanning the newsgroups that more people seem
to have some serious issues come about after updating to SP1. It also seems
that alot of those same people had absolutely no problems before doing so.
So my question is this; Why do it?
Service packs were necessary to NT 4/2000 to update vital components and
considering the length of time that some NT deployments have been out there
it's easy to understand. But the SP1 for XP seems pointless..
Looks like another way for Bill to waste our time.. Any opinions?
Harry Ohrn
--
Harry Ohrn - MS MVP (Windows Shell/User)
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/
www.webtree.ca/newlife/
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
GarryP
your XP without any type of virus not to mention enough other leaks to sink
a battleship
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
B
Packs also fixes bugs and incorporates hot fixes up to the point of the
release of the service pack.
If you're happy with your PC as it is that is fine. I will give you an
example of a small bug that is fixed in the service pack 1 that drove me
nuts. On a Windows 95 PC a printer is connected to it and the PC is shared
with a Windows XP home edition. The home edition user could not print to the
printer. SP1 fixed that problem for the client.....so it depends on hat your
needs are and what you want to do.
regards
B
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
howard
you might be able to get that by itsself.
>.
>
Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
You pretty much answered your own question with the point
"...
> Service packs were necessary to NT 4/2000 to update vital components
...
..."
The same is true of Windows XP. We have updated a huge number of vital
system components in SP1.
You may be required to be running SP1 for future software releases from
Microsoft and other third parties,
It will also be rolled into SP2 when we ship that.
If you want to see the list of things fixed in SP1 then see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/ServicePacks/Windows/XP/SP1FixList.asp
Finally - yes a number of posts to these groups are about users who have
issues with SP1, but that is what you expect in a Support Newsgroup.
Having said that the number of users with issues that post here is (and
I use this phrase in it's correct mathematical non-emotive sense)
statistically insignificant compared to the over 30 Million successful
downloads of SP1 to date.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Chris Lambert
XP like all software today is not a static object, nor could it be for long.
It exists in an environment of constantly changing harware, software, and
security threats--therefore it has to be dynamically updated. If you are not
on any network and don't intend to change any of your software or hardware
ever again, then you are fine without SP1. Otherwise I'd give it shot.
--
Chris Lambert
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
nick
nick
Also it help to do a Slipstreamed XP/SP1 Installation
>.
>
JBM
But got help in this newsgroup and everything is working
great.
Jim Manning
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
relic
Your header includes:
"X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000"
That version was in one of the late Beta builds of SP1; never in any released
update. Why did you install a Beta version of SP1 and are now adamant that
you won't install the final released version of SP1? Got a warez copy of XP
that won't allow you to install SP1?
--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
tHe sLayer.....
the op has a fear of the service pack as his pc is not stable as it is and
installling anything
unknown makes him pee his pants....
so he comes along to our froup and has a little cry for help with his
insecurity,,
and some people feed his problem with opinions based on their own
experience...
wouldnt it be more relevant for this fool to downlaod the service pack ,,
install and come along and say how good/bad it was rather than commenting on
something he does not know ?
to me experience is the root to knowledge ,, with out knowledge we are
nothing...
now go get that knowledge and then only then share the wealth of that
knowledge with us..
regards slayer
--
ThE SlAyER cOmEtH....here for the fuck about
ready to rip your freaking head off.... and get you ass slapped
SoMe PeOpLe MeReLEy Sip FrOm ThE FoUnTaIn Of KnoWlEdGe
WhErAs OthErS DrInK HeAvIly....::::''''::
if the following image offends then dont look at it...
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'_'7,
/'/ / / /"
('( ' ' _~/
\ '
'\' \ _7
\ (
\ \.
DISCLAIMER: This post does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
myself, my company, my friends, my goldfish or my neighbour's dog; don't
quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; this
post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that you may distribute this
post and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from
it.
Me 2
Ron Martell
Service Pack 1 for Windows XP was released well over a year after the
initial product was.
This compares favorably to the history of Windows 2000 and of NT4,
although I don't have the actual dates available. Service Pack 1 for
Windows 2000 was released prior to Oct 29, 2000 I believe, which is only
about 7 months after the initial release of the product.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
kurttrail
> PS,
>
> You pretty much answered your own question with the point
> "...
>> Service packs were necessary to NT 4/2000 to update vital components
> ...
> ..."
>
> The same is true of Windows XP. We have updated a huge number of
> vital system components in SP1.
> You may be required to be running SP1 for future software releases
> from Microsoft and other third parties,
> It will also be rolled into SP2 when we ship that.
>
> If you want to see the list of things fixed in SP1 then see
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/ServicePacks/Windows/XP/SP1FixList.asp
>
> Finally - yes a number of posts to these groups are about users who
> have issues with SP1, but that is what you expect in a Support
> Newsgroup. Having said that the number of users with issues that post
> here is (and I use this phrase in it's correct mathematical
> non-emotive sense) statistically insignificant compared to the over
> 30 Million successful downloads of SP1 to date.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
So that's how ya'll make up your statistics for successful SP1 installs,
on successful downloads? Just because all the SP1 files were
downloaded, does not mean that the subsequent *INSTALLATION* was
successful, by any stretch of the imagination!
Is that how your company installs patches for SQL Server, make sure it's
downloaded, and hope it installs itself successfully? That would
explain a lot!
Ever thought that the reason that ya'll had so many successful downloads
is because us consumers have had to try multiple times trying to get SP1
successfully, before giving up on it altogether?
So who is your company trying to fool with your make believe statistics,
yourselves, or us consumers as usual?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
> "ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Give me one reason that I should install SP1 when it does not appear
> that
>> it's needed. I've noticed from scanning the newsgroups that more
> people seem
>> to have some serious issues come about after updating to SP1. It also
> seems
>> that alot of those same people had absolutely no problems before
>> doing
> so.
>> So my question is this; Why do it?
>>
>> Service packs were necessary to NT 4/2000 to update vital components
> and
>> considering the length of time that some NT deployments have been out
> there
>> it's easy to understand. But the SP1 for XP seems pointless..
>>
>>
>> Looks like another way for Bill to waste our time.. Any opinions?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
GarryP
> on successful downloads? Just because all the SP1 files were
> downloaded, does not mean that the subsequent *INSTALLATION* was
> successful, by any stretch of the imagination!
<<snip>>
How about the multitude of us who downloaded the full SP1 133meg and have
installed it on multiple PC's, so far my ratio is 1 successfull download,
approx 100 installs, 1 glitch that was repairable
Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
Since I am not at liberty to discuss precise figures about Express vs.
Network downloads I cannot take this discussion any further - you would
obviously still have issues with any statistics we release.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups
"kurttrail" <donte...@homeyouspammingfools.org> wrote in message
news:e79bSJxxCHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP12...
sqr
because....
> I've noticed from scanning the newsgroups that more people seem
> to have some serious issues come about after updating to SP1.
Yes.. due to a numbers of things...Maybe their computers didn't even run
right before hand and or they didn't know what they were doing..
DO YOU!!!...
>> Service packs were necessary to NT 4/2000 to update vital components
Why would you say this and then ask for 1 good reason for installing
SP1....You answered your own question....right....
>pointless..
Look into the mirror....
>to waste our time.. Any opinions?
Yes you are correct so do not waste our time and fuck off......But that is
only my opinion...
--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--
http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
"ps" <NOSPAMwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ShAZ9.1682$hw4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Crusty (-: Old Bastard :-)
Snip > I've noticed from scanning the newsgroups that more people seem
> to have some serious issues come about after updating to SP1.
More people than what?
kurttrail
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> Since I am not at liberty to discuss precise figures about Express vs.
> Network downloads I cannot take this discussion any further - you
> would obviously still have issues with any statistics we release.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Mike
Especially when your numbers don't prove the *statistical
insignificance* of the number of people that found this remote outpost
on the vast internet and have posted their SP1 problems here.
Maybe you, & the monopolist you work for, think SP1 problems should be
characterized as "insignificant," statistically or otherwise. I would
highly doubt those that have *eXPerienced* SP1 problems would agree.
kurttrail
> How about the multitude of us who downloaded the full SP1 133meg and
> have installed it on multiple PC's, so far my ratio is 1 successfull
> download, approx 100 installs, 1 glitch that was repairable
Exactly! You just can't base how many times something was *downloaded*
to prove the how many times it was successfully *installed*! Any use of
such "apples & oranges" statistics is deceitful, at best!
Frank
Frank
"kurttrail" <donte...@homeyouspammingfools.org> wrote in message
news:OfhzWFzxCHA.1644@TK2MSFTNGP12...
kurttrail
> Are you using XP? I don't think so...!
> Frank
>
That's right, I don't use XP, I just got to fix it when it goes south on
the computers at work.
But what does that have to do with saying:
*successful downloads* = *successful installs*
I'm not the one using bogus numbers to prove any point. MS & Mike B.
are the ones using such proof. The question you should be asking is
what are they trying to hide with their "statistics," not whether I use
MS's handicapped OS.
leushino
AND the individuals mentioned there have a very good case for a lawsuit.
"kurttrail" <donte...@homeyouspammingfools.org> wrote in message
news:eYz7k54xCHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP09...
kurttrail
I only mention 2 individuals:
1.) Mike Stevens would have to prove that his version of events at that
time was actually true, to prove my words were libelous.
2.) Bill Gates would have to prove that my site is not a "parody," when
it plainly marked as such.
And what the hell does that have to do with MS & Mike Iranian using
deceptive statistics? Do you only attack me, because you have no
reasonable way of attacking my opinion that statistics for successful
downloads can never be use to prove, or even infer, how many SP1
installations have actually been successfully completed?
Do you really condone the use of statistics in such a deceptive way?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"leushino" <leus...@hotmail.nokidding.com> wrote in message
news:OLv4#f6xCHA.2564@TK2MSFTNGP12...
kurttrail
and that's what OE came up with.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
message news:e3idRS7xCHA.1620@TK2MSFTNGP11...
Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
If you wish to adopt the position that successful downloads have no
relation to actual installs, and you believe that this is a "... remote
outpost on the vast internet ... found by few ..." - then neither of us
have any basis for either saying that people in any number are having
problems with SP1 or not.
So further discussion is of minimal value on this already overly
extended thread.
John
> Having looked over your website, I would say that both Microsoft Corporation
> AND the individuals mentioned there have a very good case for a lawsuit.
What a *pathetic* (and completely wrong) way to try and get off the subject.
You sound like some spoilt brat who can't have his way, so you'll try something
else no matter *what* it is. Be ashamed of your ignorance.
John
--
M$ Paladium: "Just where the hell do you think YOU'RE going?"
kurttrail
news:uhYsC97xCHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP09...
> Kurt, we have been through this before.
>
> If you wish to adopt the position that successful downloads have no
> relation to actual installs,
That is reality, not my position! Unless you have some real proof that
everything downloads successfully, will install successfully. Do you
have any evidence at all that would suggest that SUCCESSFUL DOWNLOAD =
SUCCESSFUL INSTALLATION?
As the saying goes . . . . PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!
> and you believe that this is a "... remote
> outpost on the vast internet ... found by few ..." - then neither of
us
> have any basis for either saying that people in any number are having
> problems with SP1 or not.
>
I haven't claimed anything other than you are misrepresenting statistics
to prove what you can not possibly know!
> So further discussion is of minimal value on this already overly
> extended thread.
>
That would be correct! Your statistics don't add up to a hill of beans
in relation to SP1 successful installs, and the only people that you,
and the monopolist that you work for, can fool with those bogus
statistics, are those that have faith that MS is right no matter what,
the "MS über alles" club!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
kurttrail
> Kurt, we have been through this before.
>
> If you wish to adopt the position that successful downloads have no
> relation to actual installs, and you believe that this is a "...
> remote outpost on the vast internet ... found by few ..." - then
> neither of us have any basis for either saying that people in any
> number are having problems with SP1 or not.
>
> So further discussion is of minimal value on this already overly
> extended thread.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Mike
And why did my reply to leushino get pulled from the server? It's bad
enough misrepresenting the truth, but is your company so afraid of the
truth that it needs to hide it from people too?
Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
> And why did my reply to leushino get pulled from the server? It's bad
> enough misrepresenting the truth, but is your company so afraid of the
> truth that it needs to hide it from people too?
Possibly due to the "typo" against my name.
Which you did apologize for in a subsequent post.
Feel free to repost - but please be more careful with your spell
checker.
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups
"kurttrail" <donte...@homeyouspammingfools.org> wrote in message
news:OpC60q9xCHA.1712@TK2MSFTNGP10...
Mike Brannigan [MSFT]
I could easily post figures of actual clients who have deployed SP1
without issue to numbers of PCs, that when a basic statistical analysis
is taken against this figure and the number of problem SP1 posts ever
made to these newsgroups, still results in the problem posts being
(correct mathematical term) "statistically insignificant" in the larger
picture.
I emphasise the use of the correct mathematical term - due the fact that
some people see it as an emotive dismissal of the significance of any
problems they have experienced, which it is not.
However, since your mind is already made up. I feel any further response
to you posts would be in vain.
Whatever way you wish to look at it - SP1 was no problem install for the
vast majority of the desktops my company and our partners have deployed
it to (a huge number).
--
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
message news:u0E5Vs8xCHA.2296@TK2MSFTNGP10...
kurttrail
> Kurt,
>
> I could easily post figures of actual clients who have deployed SP1
> without issue to numbers of PCs, that when a basic statistical
> analysis is taken against this figure and the number of problem SP1
> posts ever made to these newsgroups, still results in the problem
> posts being (correct mathematical term) "statistically insignificant"
> in the larger picture.
> I emphasise the use of the correct mathematical term - due the fact
> that some people see it as an emotive dismissal of the significance
> of any problems they have experienced, which it is not.
>
> However, since your mind is already made up. I feel any further
> response to you posts would be in vain.
>
> Whatever way you wish to look at it - SP1 was no problem install for
> the vast majority of the desktops my company and our partners have
> deployed it to (a huge number).
>
The "correct mathematical term" for a statistical fallacy. LOL! You
still don't recognize that it's you're installation statistics are
absolute nonsense! You're talk the eXPerience of business deployments
of SP1 by IT professionals, when most of the SP1 problems posted here
have happened to ineXPerienced home users that were herded into the
"Express" Install. You can have no way of knowing how statistically
insignificant that they are or not, and to continue to minimize their
problems with bogus statistical claims is just plain detestable.
And you're right, my mind is made up.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
kurttrail
> Possibly due to the "typo" against my name.
> Which you did apologize for in a subsequent post.
> Feel free to repost - but please be more careful with your spell
> checker.
Hadn't realized that my apology was pulled too! I had already added
your name to my spell check at home long ago, and I now added it added
work, so it shouldn't happen again, but is there something wrong with
being an Iranian?
Roy Zurowski
it to personal e-mail and spare us the diatribe that we don't want to read!
Please!
---
Roy Zurowski
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
"The Friendly Canuck"
E-Mail: rzurowski (at) shaw.ca
---news:#zX08V#xCHA.364@TK2MSFTNGP12...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
GarryP
already raging fire.
"Roy Zurowski" <rzur...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:g7%Z9.143357$H7.58...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
kurttrail
I only mention 2 individuals:
1.) Mike Stevens would have to prove that his version of events at that
time was actually true, to prove my words were libelous.
2.) Bill Gates would have to prove that my site is not a "parody," when
it plainly marked as such.
And what the hell does that have to do with MS & Mike Brannigan using
deceptive statistics? Do you only attack me, because you have no
reasonable way of attacking my opinion that statistics for successful
downloads can never be use to prove, or even infer, how many SP1
installations have actually been successfully completed?
Do you really condone the use of statistics in such a deceptive way?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"leushino" <leus...@hotmail.nokidding.com> wrote in message
news:OLv4#f6xCHA.2564@TK2MSFTNGP12...
you
You're repeating yourself, you said this yesterday.
:o)
>.
>
leushino
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in message
news:u7aT1dGyCHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP12...
Torgeir Bakken (MVP)
> You're repeating yourself, you said this yesterday.
>
> :o)
Kurttrail's reply to leushino was removed from the MS news server because of a
mishap with kurttrail's spell checker ;-) but it was removed to late for it to
spread to news servers outside MS (the original post is present on "my" news
server, and it is archived in the Google newsgroup archive as well).
Mike told kurttrail to repost if he wanted:
From: Mike Brannigan [MSFT] (mike...@online.microsoft.com)
Subject: Re: XP & SP 1 why waste your time.
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Date: 2003-01-29 14:29:40 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%23zX08V%23xCHA.364%40TK2MSFTNGP12
--
torgeir
Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and a ONLINE version of the 1328 page
Scripting Guide: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter
kurttrail
> you wrote:
>
>> You're repeating yourself, you said this yesterday.
>>
>>> o)
>
> Kurttrail's reply to leushino was removed from the MS news server
> because of a mishap with kurttrail's spell checker ;-) but it was
> removed to late for it to spread to news servers outside MS (the
> original post is present on "my" news server, and it is archived in
> the Google newsgroup archive as well).
>
> Mike told kurttrail to repost if he wanted:
>
> From: Mike Brannigan [MSFT] (mike...@online.microsoft.com)
> Subject: Re: XP & SP 1 why waste your time.
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
> Date: 2003-01-29 14:29:40 PST
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%23zX08V%23xCHA.364%40TK2MSFTNGP12
Thanks for explaining, Torgeir!
kurttrail
The truth has set me free . . . . of YOU! LOL!