|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.a-plus > April 2005 > XP SP2
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Has anybody tried SP2 for XP home yet? Any bugs or major screw ups
from our friends at MS? i'm debating whether to put it on a machine
I'm rebuilding.
Gary
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| Generally, it's an excellent upgrade [it's the same upgrade for home or
pro, there are not really separate versions]. However 10% of so of
people have trouble with it, for one reason or another. There is a
documented problem with Prescott CPUs, and with any CPU (Xeon/Athlon)
that has "DEP" (data execution protection). These are not bugs in the
update, they are problems in OTHER software (in the case of Prescott,
BIOS that have old Intel microcode, in the case of DEP, just plain badly
written software doing things that "are not Kosher").
In a new, clean install, I'd definitely install it. On an older,
actively used machine, I'd still install it, but I'd be sure to do a
backup first.
Gary wrote:
> Has anybody tried SP2 for XP home yet? Any bugs or major screw ups
> from our friends at MS? i'm debating whether to put it on a machine
> I'm rebuilding.
>
> Gary
| |
| Brian M. 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| I just installed it last night. I had heard zonelabs had to re-do zonealarm
for it to work with sp2, so I had some hesitation about norton AV as well.
SP2 recognized norton was running, gave me props for using an antivirus
program, and worked right along with it. Haven't noticed much of a
difference other than the new security center yet.
Brian M.
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41363BCC.4050000@neo.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Generally, it's an excellent upgrade [it's the same upgrade for home or
> pro, there are not really separate versions]. However 10% of so of people
> have trouble with it, for one reason or another. There is a documented
> problem with Prescott CPUs, and with any CPU (Xeon/Athlon) that has "DEP"
> (data execution protection). These are not bugs in the update, they are
> problems in OTHER software (in the case of Prescott, BIOS that have old
> Intel microcode, in the case of DEP, just plain badly written software
> doing things that "are not Kosher").
>
> In a new, clean install, I'd definitely install it. On an older, actively
> used machine, I'd still install it, but I'd be sure to do a backup first.
>
>
> Gary wrote:
| |
|
| I followed your advice Barry, everything went smooth with no problems.
It is a huge dowmload at somewhere between 75-90mb. You definitely
need broadband to download it. Could be profitable upgrading peoples
machines?
Gary
[color=blue]
>Generally, it's an excellent upgrade [it's the same upgrade for home or
>pro, there are not really separate versions]. However 10% of so of
>people have trouble with it, for one reason or another. There is a
>documented problem with Prescott CPUs, and with any CPU (Xeon/Athlon)
>that has "DEP" (data execution protection). These are not bugs in the
>update, they are problems in OTHER software (in the case of Prescott,
>BIOS that have old Intel microcode, in the case of DEP, just plain badly
>written software doing things that "are not Kosher").
>
>In a new, clean install, I'd definitely install it. On an older,
>actively used machine, I'd still install it, but I'd be sure to do a
>backup first.
>
>
>Gary wrote:
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| Actually, the full download is 270 megabytes. This includes every
possible file that might be needed on any computer of any kind running
any version of Windows XP (not just home or pro, but tablet and media
center, and with or without any other upgrade that has ever been
offered, including service pack one and all of the hundreds of updates
offered since October of 2001, when XP came out).
If you are upgrading any other computer, you MUST NOT use the "subset"
(75-90 megabytes) that was downloaded for your computer. That download
was "customized" based on exaclty what you had, for example if you have
Home, the Pro, tablet and media center files were not downloaded, also
drivers were selected based on your actual hardware. But, beyond that,
any updates that you already had installed (IE SP6.1, Windows Media
Player, DirectX 9, Service Pack 1, all of the hundreds of "small"
updates, etc.) were also not downloaded. However, some of those files
that were left out because your particular computer didn't need them
WOULD be needed on almost any other computer [while other files that
your computer did need, might not be needed]. In the most general
sense, almost every computer is at least slightly different, it's only
by extremely rare chance that two different computers would need exactly
the same list of files from the total universe contained in the full 270
megabyte master upgrade.
So, if you are going to upgrade multiple machines, you MUST get the
"full" 270 megabyte version. It can be downloaded here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
[which, by the way, became available way back on August 10th]
Using the custom download from one computer on another computer can be
catastrophic.
Or you can order a CD [with the full 270 megabyte version], also many
retail stores have copies of the CD to give away (it's the same one that
you get in the mail if you order it), stores like Best Buy, Staples,
CompUSA, Circuit City, etc.
Gary wrote:
> I followed your advice Barry, everything went smooth with no problems.
> It is a huge dowmload at somewhere between 75-90mb. You definitely
> need broadband to download it. Could be profitable upgrading peoples
> machines?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| By the way, during the update process, installation of SP1 can require
up to 1.8 gigabytes (1,800 megabytes) of disk space. Some of that is
only used temporarily, and some of what's not temporary can be deleted
if you are sure that you will never want to uninstall SP2, but be aware
of the requirement, running out of disk space in the middle of the
install is possibly one of the things that's causing some people problems.
Barry Watzman wrote:
[color=blue]
> Actually, the full download is 270 megabytes. This includes every
> possible file that might be needed on any computer of any kind running
> any version of Windows XP (not just home or pro, but tablet and media
> center, and with or without any other upgrade that has ever been
> offered, including service pack one and all of the hundreds of updates
> offered since October of 2001, when XP came out).
>
> If you are upgrading any other computer, you MUST NOT use the "subset"
> (75-90 megabytes) that was downloaded for your computer. That download
> was "customized" based on exaclty what you had, for example if you have
> Home, the Pro, tablet and media center files were not downloaded, also
> drivers were selected based on your actual hardware. But, beyond that,
> any updates that you already had installed (IE SP6.1, Windows Media
> Player, DirectX 9, Service Pack 1, all of the hundreds of "small"
> updates, etc.) were also not downloaded. However, some of those files
> that were left out because your particular computer didn't need them
> WOULD be needed on almost any other computer [while other files that
> your computer did need, might not be needed]. In the most general
> sense, almost every computer is at least slightly different, it's only
> by extremely rare chance that two different computers would need exactly
> the same list of files from the total universe contained in the full 270
> megabyte master upgrade.
>
> So, if you are going to upgrade multiple machines, you MUST get the
> "full" 270 megabyte version. It can be downloaded here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
>
> [which, by the way, became available way back on August 10th]
>
> Using the custom download from one computer on another computer can be
> catastrophic.
>
> Or you can order a CD [with the full 270 megabyte version], also many
> retail stores have copies of the CD to give away (it's the same one that
> you get in the mail if you order it), stores like Best Buy, Staples,
> CompUSA, Circuit City, etc.
>
>
> Gary wrote:
>
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Brian M." <thedigitalphilosopher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dNCdnRKeQZH31qvcRVn-tQ@wideopenwest.com...
> I just installed it last night. I had heard zonelabs had to re-do
zonealarm
> for it to work with sp2,
Lose ZA and use SP2's firewall.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41363BCC.4050000@neo.rr.com...
> Generally, it's an excellent upgrade [it's the same upgrade for home or
> pro, there are not really separate versions]. However 10% of so of
> people have trouble with it, for one reason or another.
Not 10% as that's afigure from a bogus press report.
> There is a
> documented problem with Prescott CPUs, and with any CPU (Xeon/Athlon)
> that has "DEP" (data execution protection). These are not bugs in the
> update, they are problems in OTHER software (in the case of Prescott,
> BIOS
Nope, apparently an MS's SP2 update.sys is the culprit for the Intel CPU
issue.
> that have old Intel microcode, in the case of DEP, just plain badly
> written software doing things that "are not Kosher").
>
> In a new, clean install, I'd definitely install it. On an older,
> actively used machine, I'd still install it, but I'd be sure to do a
> backup first.
Do SP2.
| |
| Patrick Michael 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Gary" <havinfun69(nospam)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1qdcj096et5aaocmp2fcdsskf
niur4dk53@4ax.com...
> Has anybody tried SP2 for XP home yet? Any bugs or major screw ups
> from our friends at MS? i'm debating whether to put it on a machine
> I'm rebuilding.
I heard it causes a problem with certain peer-to-peer file sharing programs,
most notably Overnet/eDonkey/whatever it's called now. It was some issue
about have a very limited # of simultaneous TCP/IP connections or something.
I could be completely mistaken on this, but that's enough to make me
hesitant to download it..especially since my system seems perfectly stable
as is.
| |
|
| Thanks for the heads up Barry, I used the windows upsate for this PC.
I also have have the full version downloaded.
Gary
[color=blue]
>Actually, the full download is 270 megabytes. This includes every
>possible file that might be needed on any computer of any kind running
>any version of Windows XP (not just home or pro, but tablet and media
>center, and with or without any other upgrade that has ever been
>offered, including service pack one and all of the hundreds of updates
>offered since October of 2001, when XP came out).
>
>If you are upgrading any other computer, you MUST NOT use the "subset"
>(75-90 megabytes) that was downloaded for your computer. That download
>was "customized" based on exaclty what you had, for example if you have
>Home, the Pro, tablet and media center files were not downloaded, also
>drivers were selected based on your actual hardware. But, beyond that,
>any updates that you already had installed (IE SP6.1, Windows Media
>Player, DirectX 9, Service Pack 1, all of the hundreds of "small"
>updates, etc.) were also not downloaded. However, some of those files
>that were left out because your particular computer didn't need them
>WOULD be needed on almost any other computer [while other files that
>your computer did need, might not be needed]. In the most general
>sense, almost every computer is at least slightly different, it's only
>by extremely rare chance that two different computers would need exactly
>the same list of files from the total universe contained in the full 270
>megabyte master upgrade.
>
>So, if you are going to upgrade multiple machines, you MUST get the
>"full" 270 megabyte version. It can be downloaded here:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
>[which, by the way, became available way back on August 10th]
>
>Using the custom download from one computer on another computer can be
>catastrophic.
>
>Or you can order a CD [with the full 270 megabyte version], also many
>retail stores have copies of the CD to give away (it's the same one that
>you get in the mail if you order it), stores like Best Buy, Staples,
>CompUSA, Circuit City, etc.
>
>
>Gary wrote:
>
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| It doesn't "causes a problem with certain peer-to-peer file sharing
programs", but the firewall does have to be configured for the ports
that those programs use.
When you put a lock on your door, it keeps out both the pizza delivery
man -- who you invited -- and the thief (who you didn't). In this case,
the "lock" is "smart" -- it can let in those who are supposed to be
there while still keeping out those who are not. But you do have to
tell it who's allowed in, since the default is to keep out all unknown
"guests".
Patrick Michael wrote:
> "Gary" <havinfun69(nospam)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1qdcj096et5aaocmp2fcdsskf
niur4dk53@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> I heard it causes a problem with certain peer-to-peer file sharing programs,
> most notably Overnet/eDonkey/whatever it's called now. It was some issue
> about have a very limited # of simultaneous TCP/IP connections or something.
> I could be completely mistaken on this, but that's enough to make me
> hesitant to download it..especially since my system seems perfectly stable
> as is.
>
>
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| The problem with Prescott, when there is a problem at all, is because
the motherboard BIOS' don't have the right version of the Prescott
Pentium 4 microcode. The fix is a BIOS update that incorporates the new
code. In most cases, that fix is available now, and in many cases has
been for weeks or months. But there are plenty of motherboards that
were shipped as long as 6 months ago that don't have it, and there are
plenty of users who don't upgrade their BIOS' (for reasons ranging from
the fact that they don't even know what a BIOS upgrade is to subscribing
to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy of BIOS upgrading).
However, there is nothing wrong with SP2 itself in this regard, and
the problem is resolved using the existing SP2 exactly as released on
August 10th.
The estimate of the number of people who are having problems with SP2 is
just that, an estimate. No one knows the actual number, but 10% is in
the ballpark (even if it's low). MOST people are not having any
problems of any kind, I've done over a dozen installations without any
problems of any kind.
Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:41363BCC.4050000@neo.rr.com...
>
>
>
> Not 10% as that's afigure from a bogus press report.
>
>
>
>
> Nope, apparently an MS's SP2 update.sys is the culprit for the Intel CPU
> issue.
>
>
>
>
> Do SP2.
>
>
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4136F849.9030900@neo.rr.com...
> The problem with Prescott, when there is a problem at all, is because
> the motherboard BIOS' don't have the right version of the Prescott
> Pentium 4 microcode.
Well, no the problem happens when SP2 runs its update.sys
> The fix is a BIOS update that incorporates the new
> code.
Such removes the trigger of the update.sys bug.
> In most cases, that fix is available now, and in many cases has
> been for weeks or months. But there are plenty of motherboards that
> were shipped as long as 6 months ago that don't have it, and there are
> plenty of users who don't upgrade their BIOS' (for reasons ranging from
> the fact that they don't even know what a BIOS upgrade is to subscribing
> to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy of BIOS upgrading).
Fixing mobo BIOS upgrades for many mobos appeared only in Aug. 2004.
> However, there is nothing wrong with SP2 itself in this regard,
All evidence suggests otherwise.
> and
> the problem is resolved using the existing SP2 exactly as released on
> August 10th.
>
> The estimate of the number of people who are having problems with SP2 is
> just that, an estimate. No one knows the actual number, but 10% is in
> the ballpark (even if it's low).
No, 10% is way to high.
> MOST people are not having any
> problems of any kind, I've done over a dozen installations without any
> problems of any kind.
Right, it's a big "MOST".
[color=blue]
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
CPU[color=blue]
| |
| Patrick Michael 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4136F6AF.4090501@neo.rr.com...
> It doesn't "causes a problem with certain peer-to-peer file sharing
> programs", but the firewall does have to be configured for the ports
> that those programs use.
>
I realize that, but this particular issue didn't have anything to do with
the XP Firewall. I know I read about it in the filesharing forum on
dslreports.com, but I can't seem to find the relevant thread.
| |
| Brian M. 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:O6yZc.543337$Gx4.352736@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Brian M." <thedigitalphilosopher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dNCdnRKeQZH31qvcRVn-tQ@wideopenwest.com...
> zonealarm
>
> Lose ZA and use SP2's firewall.
>
>
Worried more about my dad's computer. Constantly getting infected with all
kinds of crap. Swears up and down that he isn't into the porn sites..... I
set him up with mozilla and zone alarm and he hasn't had any problems since.
Now the SP2 popup blocker is great, it stops stuff that even adaware pro
didn't. Only a matter of time before the coders break through that
though.....
Brian M.
| |
| Ron Reaugh 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"Brian M." <thedigitalphilosopher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tpqdnbShZMpRCarcRVn-iA@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:O6yZc.543337$Gx4.352736@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Worried more about my dad's computer. Constantly getting infected with all
> kinds of crap. Swears up and down that he isn't into the porn sites..... I
> set him up with mozilla and zone alarm and he hasn't had any problems
since.
> Now the SP2 popup blocker is great, it stops stuff that even adaware pro
> didn't. Only a matter of time before the coders break through that
> though.....
You did turn on automatic updates, right?
| |
| the yeti 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| I've been running SP2 at home since the last release canidate. I have
to say I love it. It makes my machine boot way faster. I've done
probally 50 SP2 installs in the last month. The pop-up blocking in IE
is the best thing ever.
However: I installed SP2 on a brand new machine, just built box. P4
2.8 512MB RAM AcerOpen MB, SATA hard drive. It totally hosed the
system. THe box refused to boot even in safe mode. I set back the OS
to the restore point before I installed SP2 and it was still hosed.
Complete format and reinstall. Box works fine now. I went on a
service call today for a Toshiba laptop. SP2 hosed that one too. (I
was called in after the customer had installed it herself) Blue
screen reboots etc.. It seemed to stabilize after a bit. Then as
soon as I tried to connect to the Netware server, blue screens all
over again. That one was a little different though, running Symantic
enterprise AV and Novell client.
For a home user SP2 is a pretty safe bet, in a corporate enviroment,
be careful. Propritary software can be very incompatable.
Things to remember.
1) TURN OFF YOUR ANTI-VIRUS FIRST!!!!!!
2) CLEAN ALL SPYWARE OFF THE MACHINE FIRST!!!!!
3) SET A RESTORE POINT
| |
| Bob Schmidt 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
|
"the yeti" <returnoftheyeti@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d22f77dc.0409031947.2725be77@posting.google.com...
> I've been running SP2 at home since the last release canidate. I have
> to say I love it. It makes my machine boot way faster. I've done
> probally 50 SP2 installs in the last month. The pop-up blocking in IE
> is the best thing ever.
>
> However: I installed SP2 on a brand new machine, just built box. P4
> 2.8 512MB RAM AcerOpen MB, SATA hard drive. It totally hosed the
> system. THe box refused to boot even in safe mode. I set back the OS
> to the restore point before I installed SP2 and it was still hosed.
> Complete format and reinstall. Box works fine now. I went on a
> service call today for a Toshiba laptop. SP2 hosed that one too. (I
> was called in after the customer had installed it herself) Blue
> screen reboots etc.. It seemed to stabilize after a bit. Then as
> soon as I tried to connect to the Netware server, blue screens all
> over again. That one was a little different though, running Symantic
> enterprise AV and Novell client.
>
> For a home user SP2 is a pretty safe bet, in a corporate enviroment,
> be careful. Propritary software can be very incompatable.
>
> Things to remember.
>
> 1) TURN OFF YOUR ANTI-VIRUS FIRST!!!!!!
> 2) CLEAN ALL SPYWARE OFF THE MACHINE FIRST!!!!!
> 3) SET A RESTORE POINT
I actually installed the full IT version (NOT via Windows update) in safe
mode in XP Pro and haven't had any problems. The install actually came up
with a box that said it saw I was in safe mode and advised against
installing in safe mode but I went ahead anyway since it was already fairly
far into the install at that point. Take that for what it's worth--it may be
better to merely turn off all concievable interruptions (AV, firewall, etc.,
and unplug from the internet of course) vice going all the way into safe
mode. Regarding restoring your system to before SP2, The IT version (and I
would assume the update ver.) puts an SP2 uninstall file on your machine
which you should probably write down as you are installing SP2. I assume
that it basically points to a system restore point that it creates just
prior to installing itself. I'm not sure if my earlier restore point that I
set up manually right before the SP2 install is still there or not.
I have heard of many of the problems w/SP2 are caused possibly by doing it
via Windows update while there are a bunch of apps open. This could cause
some of the data corruptions and problems people are having. Anyway, I
haven't noticed any problems at all. And you always want to have a third
party firewall (free Zonealarm, etc.) running, as the SP2 firewall just
blocks incoming and not outgoing. The SP2 firewall is better than nothing
but with free firewalls like ZA, you might as well use ZA and either turn
off SP2's or leave them both on.
| |
|
|
"the yeti" <returnoftheyeti@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d22f77dc.0409031947.2725be77@posting.google.com...
> I've been running SP2 at home since the last release canidate. I have
> to say I love it. It makes my machine boot way faster. I've done
> probally 50 SP2 installs in the last month. The pop-up blocking in IE
> is the best thing ever.
>
> However: I installed SP2 on a brand new machine, just built box. P4
> 2.8 512MB RAM AcerOpen MB, SATA hard drive. It totally hosed the
> system. THe box refused to boot even in safe mode. I set back the OS
> to the restore point before I installed SP2 and it was still hosed.
> Complete format and reinstall. Box works fine now. I went on a
> service call today for a Toshiba laptop. SP2 hosed that one too. (I
> was called in after the customer had installed it herself) Blue
> screen reboots etc.. It seemed to stabilize after a bit. Then as
> soon as I tried to connect to the Netware server, blue screens all
> over again. That one was a little different though, running Symantic
> enterprise AV and Novell client.
>
> For a home user SP2 is a pretty safe bet, in a corporate enviroment,
> be careful. Propritary software can be very incompatable.
>
> Things to remember.
>
> 1) TURN OFF YOUR ANTI-VIRUS FIRST!!!!!!
> 2) CLEAN ALL SPYWARE OFF THE MACHINE FIRST!!!!!
> 3) SET A RESTORE POINT
Especially in a corporate environment!!! Norton AV CORPORATE EDITION is
one of those on Microsoft's SP2 incompatibility (we seem to have problems
with the following programs) list. (
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...ct=windowsxpsp2 )
FORTUNATELY, Symantec has patches for Corporate Edition NAV and Ghost on
their web site for the latest versions. Still, it is something to be careful
of (as you found out).
Pete
| |
| the yeti 2005-04-06, 2:07 pm |
| > Especially in a corporate environment!!! Norton AV CORPORATE EDITION is
> one of those on Microsoft's SP2 incompatibility (we seem to have problems
> with the following programs) list. (
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...ct=windowsxpsp2 )
>
That link shows a list of programs that might have issues if the XP
SP2 firewall is on. My issue was a BSOD when trying to connect to a
Netware share and a flaky acting Symantic AV program.
> FORTUNATELY, Symantec has patches for Corporate Edition NAV and Ghost on
> their web site for the latest versions. Still, it is something to be careful
> of (as you found out).
>
> Pete
I found this weak link, but I didn't dig too deep:
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/faq.html#4
I am convinced that my issues is hardware related, as the SP2 was done
on other machines in the office with the same configuration and they
didn't experiance any problems. This Toshiba laptop bit the dust
though.
| |
|
| the yeti wrote:
>
>
> That link shows a list of programs that might have issues if the XP
> SP2 firewall is on. My issue was a BSOD when trying to connect to a
> Netware share and a flaky acting Symantic AV program.
>
If you are using the Novell client make sure you have the latest version of
the client and the service packs to the server. Microsoft has a record of
breaking the client every time they do a patch.
Use support-forums.novell.com news server and look for the
novell.support.novell.client.winnt-2x-xp forum to ask this same question. Lots
of very knowleadgeable people there. Just stay on topic and don't cross-post
questions.
Bert Sainz
CNE
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
|
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41363BCC.4050000@neo.rr.com...
> Generally, it's an excellent upgrade [it's the same upgrade for home
or
its disgusting you would pay for a bugfix and then try to delude
yourself into thinking its an "upgrade"
> pro, there are not really separate versions]. However 10% of so of
for that matter, there are not really separate versions of XP pro and
DOS 3.2
they all use the same bloated, obsolete late 70s "basic input/output
system" ibm hacked into hardware and necro$loth so lovingly emulated
in even more poorly implemented software
> people have trouble with it, for one reason or another. There is a
because its crap?
> documented problem with Prescott CPUs, and with any CPU
(Xeon/Athlon)
"xeon/athlon"? what a way to insult the only manufacturer of
operational x86 microprocessors! by pairing them up with fly-by-night
shady operations like [un]intel!
> that has "DEP" (data execution protection). These are not bugs in
the
> update, they are problems in OTHER software (in the case of
Prescott,
> BIOS that have old Intel microcode, in the case of DEP, just plain
badly
> written software doing things that "are not Kosher").
ah yes, everyone is at fault but microsloth
> In a new, clean install, I'd definitely install it. On an older,
> actively used machine, I'd still install it, but I'd be sure to do a
> backup first.
i'd have my head examined first for considering using that crap
[color=blue]
> Gary wrote:
ups[color=blue]
machine[color=blue]
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
| RE: "
> Solomon Kozanski wrote:
> ....
> its disgusting you would pay for a bugfix and then try to delude
> yourself into thinking its an "upgrade"
>
"
SP2 is Free.
Re: "
>
> i'd have my head examined first for considering using that crap
>
"
Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
|
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41509064.1050105@neo.rr.com...
> RE: "
>
> "
>
> SP2 is Free.
really? that's a step in a rather strange direction for necro.
--
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
> Re: "
> "
>
> Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
| |
| Lloyd Hugh Allen 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
| Solomon said;
>Barry said:
>really? that's a step in a rather strange direction for necro.
Actually, service packs are free for NT, 2000, XP...I'm thinking for
all of the MS operating systems. It's only when you want to change the
name of your operating system (e.g., 2000 to XP) that you have to pay
money.
I just want to make sure that I'm in the right place--this group is for
CompTIA A+ certification, right? And I will have to pass a test on MS
operating systems in order to achieve my A+ certification, right? So
whether we like or dislike MS or linux, in the context of A+
certification, we have to be able to constructively answer questions
about how to fix issues with computers running MS without changing the
OS, I think.
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
| MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 42
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.certification.a-plus:107568
"Lloyd Hugh Allen" <chandrakirti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1095935445.756605.135160@h37g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
> Solomon said;
>
> Actually, service packs are free for NT, 2000, XP...I'm thinking for
> all of the MS operating systems. It's only when you want to change
the
> name of your operating system (e.g., 2000 to XP) that you have to
pay
> money.
>
> I just want to make sure that I'm in the right place--this group is
for
> CompTIA A+ certification, right? And I will have to pass a test on
MS
> operating systems in order to achieve my A+ certification, right? So
> whether we like or dislike MS or linux, in the context of A+
> certification, we have to be able to constructively answer questions
> about how to fix issues with computers running MS without changing
the
> OS, I think.
>
in the context of A+, if the "computer industry" wants to people to
know something about the basic function of computers, there is
absolutely no excuse to ignore better and more stable operating
systems.
if its about hardware and computer basics, then the "operating
systems" (and i use that term very loosely) portion should be
lobotomized, and windoze should be moved to it's own "windows+" or
"win32+" certification, or else they should expand the A+ to include
linux and mac (just to name a few of the mainstream alternatives).
there is no excuse for this blatant pigheaded discrimination.
--
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-04-06, 2:11 pm |
| There ARE MAC questions in the question pool for the CompTIA exams. Not
a lot and not highly detailed, but their are some, I had a couple of
them although it might have been on the Network+ exam.
The fact is that while the CompTIA exams are nominally "vendor
independent", when over 90% of the installed base is running Microsoft
operating systems, the exam ends up including a large amount of
questions on MS OS'. It's realistically unavoidable.
Solomon Kozanski wrote:
> "Lloyd Hugh Allen" <chandrakirti@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1095935445.756605.135160@h37g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> the
>
>
> pay
>
>
> for
>
>
> MS
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> in the context of A+, if the "computer industry" wants to people to
> know something about the basic function of computers, there is
> absolutely no excuse to ignore better and more stable operating
> systems.
>
> if its about hardware and computer basics, then the "operating
> systems" (and i use that term very loosely) portion should be
> lobotomized, and windoze should be moved to it's own "windows+" or
> "win32+" certification, or else they should expand the A+ to include
> linux and mac (just to name a few of the mainstream alternatives).
>
> there is no excuse for this blatant pigheaded discrimination.
> --
> Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
>
| |
|
| I found an interesting SP2 bug today.
If you install the OS from a slipstreamed CD the firewall is automatically
turned on. OK, I am aware of that, no big deal. HOWEVER. The windows
firewall blocks the port needed for Windows Product Activation.
Now thats just plain funny.
| |
|
|
"Solomon Kozanski" < noneofyourdamnbusiness@localne
t.com> wrote in message
news:10l5i5aglndul45@corp.supernews.com...
>
> if its about hardware and computer basics, then the "operating
> systems" (and i use that term very loosely) portion should be
> lobotomized, and windoze should be moved to it's own "windows+" or
> "win32+" certification, or else they should expand the A+ to include
> linux and mac (just to name a few of the mainstream alternatives).
>
mainstream? hmmm, you use that term rather loosely as well....
jjw
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:12 pm |
| "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4152ED31.4010603@neo.rr.com...
> There ARE MAC questions in the question pool for the CompTIA exams.
Not
> a lot and not highly detailed, but their are some, I had a couple of
> them although it might have been on the Network+ exam.
>
> The fact is that while the CompTIA exams are nominally "vendor
> independent", when over 90% of the installed base is running
Microsoft
> operating systems, the exam ends up including a large amount of
> questions on MS OS'. It's realistically unavoidable.
i question this "installed base" statistic. just because the x86/win32
architecture accounts for ~90% of sales does not mean they account for
90% of the installed and running market.
other platforms (notably unix and macintosh based systems) tend to
have a much longer usable life and tend to obsolesce at a slower pace,
which explains why a quadra from several years ago may be able to run
current software (and still be in active use) and a peecee tends to
need replacement every 3 to five years.
from a business standpoint, planned obsolescence is a brilliant scheme
that ensures consistent sales. apple never considered doing this, as
they tend to be a bit more honest in their dealings, and while a good
company with a vastly superior product, this and the initial cost
factor are the major reasons why apple's market share is substantially
less than that of x86/win32 machines.
as for the "realistically unavoidable" part, it is realistically
avoidable; A+ simply defines their secondary half as "operating
systems", which, perhaps intentionally, blatantly avoids alternatives.
had they simply defined it as "win32" operating systems, perhaps i
wouldnt have so much of a gripe.
on the other hand, A+ is basic computer technician repair stuff, it
isn't computer science, so i cannot *realistically expect* a
"certified technician" to actually know anything about the nuts and
bolts.
the thing that pisses me off about technicians tho, is that they try
to pass themselves off as some sort of skilled, educated types, who
know everything there is to know about computer science when they
don't even know what a JK flip-flop is, or for that matter, *anything*
about digital electronics!
we should all get a sense of reality like our good friend AG did.
--
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:12 pm |
|
"jjw" <bigwheelsNO16SPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NbednS0bnINAMc7cRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Solomon Kozanski" < noneofyourdamnbusiness@localne
t.com> wrote in
message
> news:10l5i5aglndul45@corp.supernews.com...
include[color=blue]
>
> mainstream? hmmm, you use that term rather loosely as well....
>
> jjw
you use the terms "operating system", "computer", and "microprocessor"
very loosely as well
--
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
| |
| Solomon Kozanski 2005-04-06, 2:12 pm |
| "Yeti" <yeti@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news pses71tmfr6q3ea@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> I found an interesting SP2 bug today.
>
> If you install the OS from a slipstreamed CD the firewall is
automatically
> turned on. OK, I am aware of that, no big deal. HOWEVER. The
windows
> firewall blocks the port needed for Windows Product Activation.
>
> Now thats just plain funny.
shame you can't simply circumvent the WPA scheme; then again, perhaps
you can:
http://www.tecchannel.com/client/desktop/31/
--
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
| |
|
| "Solomon Kozanski" > you use the terms "operating system", "computer", and
"microprocessor"
> very loosely as well
> --
> Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
>
I don't use any of those terms. I use "Windows", "PC", and "CPU."
jjw
| |
|
| works ok, just recheck the firewall after the upgrade
"Gary" <havinfun69(nospam)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1qdcj096et5aaocmp2fcdsskf
niur4dk53@4ax.com...
> Has anybody tried SP2 for XP home yet? Any bugs or major screw ups
> from our friends at MS? i'm debating whether to put it on a machine
> I'm rebuilding.
>
> Gary
|
|
|
|
|