SP2
kozlikha
The computer works fine now, i have Norton Firewall, Antivirus, Go
Back and Ad-aware installed.
I have tried to install SP2 earlier and Windows would not load up. I
have managed to uninstall Go Back program and performed a system
restore.
Thank God it's all back to normal and works now. I am not proficient
in computers and would not know what and how to upgrade to enable
smooth installation of SP2.
So the question remains, whether it is NECESSARY to do so.
Cheers.
Ron Reaugh
"kozlikha" <kozl...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:416084d4$1...@alt.athenanews.com...
> What are the consequences of not upgrading to SP2?
No future robust XP support from MS. Do SP2 as ultimately there is no
choice. SP2 works just fine for the vast majority of folks.
> The computer works fine now, i have Norton Firewall, Antivirus, Go
> Back and Ad-aware installed.
>
> I have tried to install SP2 earlier and Windows would not load up. I
> have managed to uninstall Go Back program and performed a system
> restore.
>
> Thank God it's all back to normal and works now. I am not proficient
> in computers and would not know what and how to upgrade to enable
> smooth installation of SP2.
>
> So the question remains, whether it is NECESSARY to do so.
Figure out why there was an SP2 problem. Fix it and do SP2.
Skeleton Man
>No future robust XP support from MS. Do SP2 as ultimately there is no
>choice. SP2 works just fine for the vast majority of folks.
I beg to differ.. my experiences have been quite the opposite.. individuals
and businesses.. I've seen nothing but trouble with SP2..
Regards,
Chris
kony
kozl...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (kozlikha) wrote:
No, not necessary. It has a few security features but if
you're REALLY into security you're not using IE or OE
anymore regardless of patches, they are the two biggest
holes in XP.
Here's an itemized list of what you're missing:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx
Most of the features are more for novice users that don't
already have experience, practices and procedures for
dealing with these issues already in place. For the most
part it's painless if your apps still work, but it's not a
"must-have" update by any stretch... but do visit
windowsupdate and have all the individual updates applied.
xxxx...@newscene.com
>No, not necessary. It has a few security features but if
>you're REALLY into security you're not using IE or OE
>anymore regardless of patches, they are the two biggest
>holes in XP.
I still use IE due to paranoia that some sites wont work right but
frankly Im also using FireFox which is getting more and more popular
and so far its worked fine. With IE I have to admit I use a
Spyware/pop up blocker which can be a pain in the ass. SP2 also blocks
downloads of various things and will offer you the option of
downloading.
Ive never liked OE so I dont use it.
However --- it seems like the net is getting worse and worse. I was
formatting a installing some stuff for a neighbor after both of his
PCs were infected by viruses and spyware - screwed up. I searched for
the site to install the free prog search and destroy which is highly
regarded. There was this counterfeit site which I clicked on thinking
it was related to it and it isntalled 300 bits of spyware crud which
totally trashed the fresh installation I did. And then I saw a popup
which offered to sell me a spyware fixer for $30. It wasnt related to
search and destroy at all. The PC was running so slow it took forever
to get to the real site and then install it and run it. I could barely
run to the point after a long while it searched the PC and listed 300
entries ! It was locking up and so screwed I ended up refomatting
again. It kind of felt like extortion. I wish people would start suing
sites like that. Of course they are probably located in Outer Slobovia
making that impossible.
SP2 - not sure really. Ive had some weird things happen after I
installed it and others have blamed problems on it too. But its
running fine now so Im not sure if it was a convenient scapegoat or
not but Ive seen a fair amount of posts where people blame it for a
variety of post install problems.
Mike Walsh
Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2) don't use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you will have a secure system.
--
When replying by Email include NewSGrouP (case sensitive) in Subject
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
Keith Willcocks
"kozlikha" <kozl...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:416084d4$1...@alt.athenanews.com...
>
I have no confidence in SP2. It causes problems with Windows own Internet
Connection Service causing the client computer's link to drop out
intermittently, so I turned the firewall off and went back to Zone Alarm
(version 4.5, their version 5 does the same as SP2). Then it told me that
my Norton Anti-virus 2003 was too old and I should fork out for a later
version, so I turned off the Anti Virus monitor as well. Then Nero Burning
Rom came up with a message that it had known problems with the operating
system, and that finished up with a 50+ megabyte download from Nero. I
think Mr gates should put SP2 where the sun don't shine.
Keith Willcocks
(remove .nospam from address to reply)
Gojira
following it's release.An update shouldn't cause so many problems,it seems
ruhed,poorly developed,and even more poorly tested.
"Skeleton Man" <inv...@guestwho.com> wrote in message
news:iO88d.13759$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
kozlikha
there will be no future conflicts between software updates.
Cheers.
Ron Reaugh
"Skeleton Man" <inv...@guestwho.com> wrote in message
news:iO88d.13759$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hire a professional to help you out.
Ron Reaugh
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:le92m0ljr1p5kqjdm...@4ax.com...
In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.
Ron Reaugh
"Mike Walsh" <mike...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:41616C9C...@sbcglobal.net...
>
> Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2) don't
use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you will have a secure
system.
And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base? Would a
real computer pro take that advive?
Ron Reaugh
"Keith Willcocks" <keith.willc...@btinternet.com.nospam> wrote in
message news:cjs1bu$fg5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just fine.
Norton/
Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning it.....
Ron Reaugh
"Gojira" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MRf8d.2821$j34.2435@trndny05...
> I agree,the MS newsgroups were flooded with complaints almost immediately
> following it's release.
Not flooded. The amount was MUCH less than anticipated. NGs distill the
problems. Most don't come to NGs because SP2 works fine.
>An update shouldn't cause so many problems,it seems
> ruhed,poorly developed,and even more poorly tested.
There is not the slightest evidence to support that.
Ron Reaugh
"kozlikha" <kozl...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> BIG thanks for your replies. I just hope that if I don't install SP2,
> there will be no future conflicts between software updates.
OF COURSE there will be.
kony
LOL, you're starting to sound like DaveW.
"Must have" is nonsense. If we want to nitpick, the average
user shouldn't even think about applying ANY service
packs... how many "average users" do you know that could
even get their systems running again if windows (just)
didn't load? Sure that can format and reinstall everything,
not knowing what went wrong. Or, they could slipstream SP2,
but how many "average users" even know what a slipstream is?
The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
time. The best thing an average user could do is simply
ditch as much as MS's SW as possible, not adding to it's
complexity in any way, including SP2.
kony
Most of them.
Ron Reaugh
Not hardly. Most real pros want to be running what their customers are
using.
Ron Reaugh
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
> time.
Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along with
AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
> The best thing an average user could do is simply
> ditch as much as MS's SW as possible,
And that allows us all to dismiss you as 90% of the world runs MS on PCs.
kony
<rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>> The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
>> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
>> time.
>
>Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along with
>AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
No, that does not solve the problem.
>
>> The best thing an average user could do is simply
>> ditch as much as MS's SW as possible,
>
>And that allows us all to dismiss you as 90% of the world runs MS on PCs.
So we are in agreement that 90% of the world is not
concerned about what's best regarding security?
If so, then what argument remains for SP2?
90% of the world does not run winXP.
kony
<rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>> >And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base?
>Would a
>> >real computer pro take that advive?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Most of them.
>
>Not hardly. Most real pros want to be running what their customers are
>using.
>
???
Seems very unlikely. They might want at least a box or two
set up with same OS, but that's more like a virus in
isolation, to be studied. I keep a few old ISA NICs around
too, for customers who refuse to upgrade to a modern PC, but
I don't use one myself except in those cases.
Ron Reaugh
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:12:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
> >> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
> >> time.
> >
> >Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along
with
> >AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
>
>
> No, that does not solve the problem.
NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.
CBFalconer
>> don't use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you
>> will have a secure system.
>
> And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base?
> Would a real computer pro take that advive?
Yes. He just installs Netscape and is all set.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
kony
<rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:lkb4m018j8cacodak...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:12:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
>> <rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
>> >> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
>> >> time.
>> >
>> >Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along
>with
>> >AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
>>
>>
>> No, that does not solve the problem.
>
>NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
>highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
>PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.
So you're claiming that spyware infestations are down 99% on
systems running SP2? Dream on.
Ron Reaugh
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4162321C...@yahoo.com...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > "Mike Walsh" <mike...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Disable the Messenger service (it is disabled by default with SP2)
> >> don't use Internet Explorer or outlook/outlook express and you
> >> will have a secure system.
> >
> > And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base?
> > Would a real computer pro take that advive?
>
> Yes. He just installs Netscape and is all set.
Just NO!
Ron Reaugh
Gojira
"Ron Reaugh" <rondas...@att.net> wrote in message
news:Jcm8d.487889$OB3.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Gojira" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MRf8d.2821$j34.2435@trndny05...
> > I agree,the MS newsgroups were flooded with complaints almost
immediately
> > following it's release.
>
> Not flooded. The amount was MUCH less than anticipated. NGs distill the
> problems. Most don't come to NGs because SP2 works fine.
>
> >An update shouldn't cause so many problems,it seems
> > ruhed,poorly developed,and even more poorly tested.
>
> There is not the slightest evidence to support that.
>
complaints. When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
poorly conceived program.You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
or wrong" people. Dismissing all the problems SP2 has caused by blaming the
users helps no one.It shouldn't take a trained professional to install an
update meant for home users as well as businesses.If Windows didn't have so
many vulnerabilities,all these security updates wouldn't be necessary in
the first place.
Skeleton Man
You're right, 6 years experience as a tech, with a diploma in systems
administration, hardly qualifies me to install a service pack. You're a
moron, plain and simple.
Chris
Noozer
> >
> > Most of the features are more for novice users that don't
> > already have experience, practices and procedures for
> > dealing with these issues already in place. For the most
> > part it's painless if your apps still work, but it's not a
> > "must-have" update by any stretch...
>
> In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.
Maybe for the neophyte... SP2 is definately a MUST AVOID for anyone who
actually USES their computer.
Noozer
> > >> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
> > >> time.
> > >
> > >Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall along
> with
> > >AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
> >
> >
> > No, that does not solve the problem.
>
> NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
> highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
> PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.
SP2 does NOTHING to solve the problem, which is USERS who haven't got a
clue.
Putting SP2 on an average users computer is the same as giving a helmet to a
driver who hasn't got a license and doesn't know how to drive. It doesn't
protect anyone else and doesn't stop the dumbass from continuing to do dumb
things. All it does is protect the stupid part of the equation.
Noozer
> intermittently, so I turned the firewall off and went back to Zone Alarm
> > (version 4.5, their version 5 does the same as SP2). Then it told me
> that
> > my Norton Anti-virus 2003 was too old and I should fork out for a later
> > version, so I turned off the Anti Virus monitor as well. Then Nero
> Burning
> > Rom came up with a message that it had known problems with the operating
> > system, and that finished up with a 50+ megabyte download from Nero. I
> > think Mr gates should put SP2 where the sun don't shine.
>
> All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just fine.
> Norton/
> Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning it.....
SP2 does NOT work fine. It's a piece of crap.
I've been using Symantec stuff for years and never had a bit of trouble.
Now ZoneAlarm is a different story. BLECH!
Noozer
Only if you actually install SP2 and leave the automatic updates on.
Ron Reaugh
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondas...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:Jcm8d.487889$OB3.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Gojira" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MRf8d.2821$j34.2435@trndny05...
> > > I agree,the MS newsgroups were flooded with complaints almost
> immediately
> > > following it's release.
> >
> > Not flooded. The amount was MUCH less than anticipated. NGs distill
the
> > problems. Most don't come to NGs because SP2 works fine.
> >
> > >An update shouldn't cause so many problems,it seems
> > > ruhed,poorly developed,and even more poorly tested.
> >
> > There is not the slightest evidence to support that.
> >
> Don't know what groups you're looking at,but I've seen hundreds of
> complaints.
So do I. Hundreds is SMALL.
> When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
> poorly conceived program.
NO, this has been the biggest fastest deployment in history of any piece of
software.
SP2 is VERY well conceived.
>You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
> or wrong" people.
Nope, I nail MS every time they screw up like the Prescott fiasco in SP2
which they new about in June in RC2 but didn't adress in RTM. That HUGE
snafu affects a microscopic fraction of users.
> Dismissing all the problems SP2 has caused by blaming the
> users helps no one.
HUH?
>It shouldn't take a trained professional to install an
> update meant for home users as well as businesses.
Usually that home users was already hopeless infected and in dire need of
professional help. While he's sitting there massively infected he's fouling
the Inet for the rest of us.
>If Windows didn't have so
> many vulnerabilities,all these security updates wouldn't be necessary in
> the first place.
Get a clue....all existent SW has such vulnerabilities including Linux. MS
has been the focus of the hacker freaks because of market percentage...DUH!
MS has gotten serious about security. With SP2's firewall and MS's
Automatic Updates and a good virus scanner and a good spyware checker, one
is in good shape.
Ron Reaugh
> >Hire a professional to help you out.
>
> You're right, 6 years experience as a tech,
OH god...a wannabee.
Ron Reaugh
"Noozer" <dont...@me.here> wrote in message
news:Ybw8d.636816$gE.473956@pd7tw3no...
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx
> > >
> > > Most of the features are more for novice users that don't
> > > already have experience, practices and procedures for
> > > dealing with these issues already in place. For the most
> > > part it's painless if your apps still work, but it's not a
> > > "must-have" update by any stretch...
The above fraud does NOT appear at MS site.
> > In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.
>
> Maybe for the neophyte... SP2 is definately a MUST AVOID for anyone who
> actually USES their computer.
WACKO!
Ron Reaugh
"Noozer" <dont...@me.here> wrote in message
> > > >> The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,
> > > >> and has a half dozen spywares on their system at any given
> > > >> time.
> > > >
> > > >Yep, that's why they should install SP2 and use the MS firewall
along
> > with
> > > >AVG and Adaware and turn on Automatic Updates.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that does not solve the problem.
> >
> > NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
> > highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands
of
> > PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.
>
> SP2 does NOTHING to solve the problem, which is USERS who haven't got a
> clue.
Get a clue. SP2 + Automatic Updates is a powerful combination. Add a good
virus scanner and spyware checker and you're there.
> Putting SP2 on an average users computer is the same as giving a helmet to
a
> driver who hasn't got a license and doesn't know how to drive.
Exactly, we want that driver and the children he has with him wearing
helmets and we want your type out of public sight. Especially because your
type are the ones who let him behind the wheel.
Ron Reaugh
"Noozer" <dont...@me.here> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > intermittently, so I turned the firewall off and went back to Zone Alarm
> > > (version 4.5, their version 5 does the same as SP2). Then it told me
> > that
> > > my Norton Anti-virus 2003 was too old and I should fork out for a
later
> > > version, so I turned off the Anti Virus monitor as well. Then Nero
> > Burning
> > > Rom came up with a message that it had known problems with the
operating
> > > system, and that finished up with a 50+ megabyte download from Nero.
I
> > > think Mr gates should put SP2 where the sun don't shine.
> >
> > All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just fine.
> > Norton/
> > Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning it.....
>
> SP2 does NOT work fine. It's a piece of crap.
WACKO!
kony
<rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>> Don't know what groups you're looking at,but I've seen hundreds of
>> complaints.
>
>So do I. Hundreds is SMALL.
What about those who only had one system, and had to
reinstall to get it working, thus system FINALLY worked
again, therefore no reason to post for help on usenet
anymore?
>
>> When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
>> poorly conceived program.
>
>NO, this has been the biggest fastest deployment in history of any piece of
>software.
>SP2 is VERY well conceived.
Biggest OR fastest are desireable?
How about, smallest because little needed patched, or
slowest because such a mammoth SP was extensively tested?
Now, if this were a sweeping change to the core components,
a sweeping overhaul, of OE or IE, that might be a different
story, but it wouldn't have to be HUGE to do that, a few
dozen MB at most.
>
>>You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
>> or wrong" people.
>
>Nope, I nail MS every time they screw up like the Prescott fiasco in SP2
>which they new about in June in RC2 but didn't adress in RTM. That HUGE
>snafu affects a microscopic fraction of users.
U nail them every time they sell a copy of windows?
That is screwing up, selling an OS that is SO insecure until
patched. It should've been recalled like a defective
product in any other industry.
>
>> Dismissing all the problems SP2 has caused by blaming the
>> users helps no one.
>
>HUH?
What could "Hire a professional to help you out." possibly
mean then?
You suggest paying someone to help fix flaws in a product
already paid for. Shouldn't MICROSOFT be the one footing
the bill?
>
>>It shouldn't take a trained professional to install an
>> update meant for home users as well as businesses.
>
>Usually that home users was already hopeless infected and in dire need of
>professional help. While he's sitting there massively infected he's fouling
>the Inet for the rest of us.
So, due to Microsoft's defective OS, the USER is fouling the
Inet? Nope, the OS is fouling up the Inet, the user is
still a victim, waiting for the OS to work as advertised.
>
>>If Windows didn't have so
>> many vulnerabilities,all these security updates wouldn't be necessary in
>> the first place.
>
>Get a clue....all existent SW has such vulnerabilities including Linux. MS
>has been the focus of the hacker freaks because of market percentage...DUH!
Actually, NO!
That is nonsense, an urban myth that it's simply due to
Microsoft's popularity in the market. The _FACT_ is that MS
never made a reasonable effort to secure it, so in addition
to minor bugs, misc. vulnerabilities present in many if not
all OS, there are also holes big enough to drive a truck
though.
Or, let's look at it another way...
Who cares WHY MS is the focus of hacker freaks, when the
bottom line is that you can choose a product that ISN'T the
target of hacker freaks and be more secure?
>MS has gotten serious about security.
Wouldn't it be fairer to state that they have gotten serious
about MARKETING security buzzwords?
In the end, they only try to sell more copies of windows.
You have no hope of having a secure OS because they want the
next sale, too. You have taken the bait and are on their
hook but don't even realize it.
>With SP2's firewall and MS's
>Automatic Updates and a good virus scanner and a good spyware checker, one
>is in good shape.
Automatic Updates are great... if you want to have a fully
working system that suddenly stops working without your
"doing" anything in particular.
Bottom line - make regular backups to removable media and
leave a working system alone, rather focusing on secure
computing practices and already-secure apps. Then you have
no need to hope, cross fingers, wave around a chicken or
roll the bones to find out if your system will KEEP working
after MS is done "fixing" it.
Ron Reaugh
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:01:28 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
> <rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Don't know what groups you're looking at,but I've seen hundreds of
> >> complaints.
> >
> >So do I. Hundreds is SMALL.
>
> What about those who only had one system, and had to
> reinstall to get it working,
A tiny fraction of those that have any problems which is still a small
fraction of users.
> thus system FINALLY worked
> again, therefore no reason to post for help on usenet
> anymore?
>
> >
> >> When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
> >> poorly conceived program.
> >
> >NO, this has been the biggest fastest deployment in history of any piece
of
> >software.
> >SP2 is VERY well conceived.
>
> Biggest OR fastest are desireable?
In the current Inet security environment, YES!
> How about, smallest because little needed patched, or
> slowest because such a mammoth SP was extensively tested?
>
> Now, if this were a sweeping change to the core components,
> a sweeping overhaul, of OE or IE, that might be a different
> story, but it wouldn't have to be HUGE to do that, a few
> dozen MB at most.
>
> >
> >>You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
> >> or wrong" people.
> >
> >Nope, I nail MS every time they screw up like the Prescott fiasco in SP2
> >which they new about in June in RC2 but didn't adress in RTM. That HUGE
> >snafu affects a microscopic fraction of users.
>
> U nail them every time they sell a copy of windows?
> That is screwing up, selling an OS that is SO insecure until
> patched. It should've been recalled like a defective
> product in any other industry.
Wacko!
Gojira
The fact is success has made Microsoft lazy and greedy,they'd rather
concentrate on getting more money from their customers than on producing a
quality product. Is it just a coincidence that SP2 seems to cause problems
with Symantec products,when MSN has a partnership with McAfee? As for the
number of complaints,it might be even higher,if only people affected could
get online to complain.But one of the major flaws of SP2 is apparently that
it screws up your internet connection! Great security strategy,Bill,if
people can't go online,they won't get any viruses!
Noozer
Nero.
> I
> > > > think Mr gates should put SP2 where the sun don't shine.
> > >
> > > All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just
fine.
> > > Norton/
> > > Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning
it.....
> >
> > SP2 does NOT work fine. It's a piece of crap.
>
> WACKO!
You tend to say that a lot when you lose an argument.
Ron Reaugh
"Gojira" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vVN8d.1587
> Now that's an intelligent comeback.It's obvious you're a Bill Gates
groupie.
> The fact is success has made Microsoft lazy and greedy,they'd rather
> concentrate on getting more money from their customers than on producing a
> quality product. Is it just a coincidence that SP2 seems to cause problems
> with Symantec products,when MSN has a partnership with McAfee? As for the
> number of complaints,it might be even higher,if only people affected could
> get online to complain.But one of the major flaws of SP2 is apparently
that
> it screws up your internet connection! Great security strategy,Bill,if
> people can't go online,they won't get any viruses!
The true nature of these beasties always comes out.
Ron Reaugh
everyday install and use SP2 with no problems.
"Noozer" <dont...@me.here> wrote in message
news:EtR8d.643561$gE.417002@pd7tw3no...
kony
<rondas...@att.net> wrote:
>My argument is already proven to be correct as the 100,000s of folks who
>everyday install and use SP2 with no problems.
>
You have no proof that 100,000s of folks install and use SP2
with no problems. In fact, many companies chose NOT to
install SP2 due to problems.
Ron Reaugh
Gojira
consistently used unfair,often illegal business practices,routinely releases
flawed products,and offers very little in the way of real improvements in
those products.Frankly,you've gotten very boring.PLONK
Noozer
who
> > >everyday install and use SP2 with no problems.
> >
> > You have no proof that 100,000s of folks install and use SP2
> > with no problems. In fact, many companies chose NOT to
> > install SP2 due to problems.
>
> Get a clue.
If you can't even bother with a reasonable reply, don't bother.
Grinder
> Is it just a coincidence that SP2 seems to cause problems
> with Symantec products,when MSN has a partnership with McAfee?
Perhaps. I've been watching Symantec products f'up for years, so they
may have to tote the majority of this burden.
Just my two cents -- and now back to your regularily scheduled fisticuffs...
Francesco
run a LOT of programs. Its still working effectively, losing somewhat fps in
games and sometimes weird error msg. But it could be Norton 2K5 alone:
saying it doest support repair option. I ran SP2 as soon as it was released
here in Holland and testing it as one of the first. So far, all my programs
run.
Kind regards,
F.
"Ron Reaugh" <rondas...@att.net> schreef in bericht
news:JgY8d.671114$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Willi & Sue
> My argument is already proven to be correct as the 100,000s of folks who
> everyday install and use SP2 with no problems.
It seems that even YOU can't do that.
Here's a quote from one of your former posts:
"The implication is that most all of us 865/875 chipset mobo owners (and I
assume that the issue is MUCH WIDER) have been running with all the CPU
bugs/addenda UNFIXED!"
Willi
Ron Reaugh
"Francesco" <gamersv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4166b...@news3.telebyte.nl...
> I liked XP as it came without most updates. Though... even with SP2 and I
> run a LOT of programs. Its still working effectively, losing somewhat fps
in
> games and sometimes weird error msg. But it could be Norton 2K5 alone:
> saying it doest support repair option. I ran SP2 as soon as it was
released
> here in Holland and testing it as one of the first. So far, all my
programs
> run.
Just like the vast majority of folks that install SP2.
Ron Reaugh
"Willi & Sue" <gol...@frii.com> wrote in message
news:416da0f5$0$217$7586...@news.frii.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > My argument is already proven to be correct as the 100,000s of folks who
> > everyday install and use SP2 with no problems.
>
>
> It seems that even YOU can't do that.
Nope, it turns out that SP2 installs just fine on my 875 chipset mobo as
Asus got the BIOS right.
> Here's a quote from one of your former posts:
>
> "The implication is that most all of us 865/875 chipset mobo owners (and I
> assume that the issue is MUCH WIDER) have been running with all the CPU
> bugs/addenda UNFIXED!"
Yep. The "bugs/addenda" refers to Intel and NOT MS stuff.
Get a clue.
Gorm
Flame wars... do they ever stop...
Anyways, my 10 cents...
I didn't install SP2, and not planning to unless i have a gun to my
head (i mean, MS products will stop functionning one day). The reason
being is that I don't like the software being installed on my
computer without my choosing to do so... SP2 other than number of
patches installes lots of other crap (Thanks for the link to the
features that SP2 has - i didn't feel like looking in myself... )
that I already have analoges to, that work better. I don't need any
of those...
[off]damn, i was thinking of myself as an IT professional or at least
being almost all the way to it... Amd I am just a wannabe... :( I
can't live like that anymore... went working in the museum...
:([/off]