updates to install until sp2 cd available

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
updates.
We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
update check.

How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the windows
Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.

 

[Nancy]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

JA D,
waiting for sp2 cd is the right idea however, browsing
the net without the security patches is risky so you're
right in the way you think.
since not all the win patches are needed by your
computer, it is definitively that you do not have to
download them all, this would save you time and money
especially that you're on a 56k dialup connection.
the best way that i see it is to run windows update
manually and let it search for the patches needed by
your computer. once the search is over, note the patches
numbers and download them later on your ease.

hope i understood your question and came with a help to
you.

>-----Original Message-----
>We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version
of SP2.
>My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while
installing a new drive.
>We have the October security CD which takes him through
the Oct 15, 2003
>updates.
>We want to download ahead of time updates to make his
machine current. He
>will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-
line for a final
>update check.
>
>How can we get a definative list of which files to
download from the windows
>Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>
>
>.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Nancy thanks.
I think I need to explain better. My computer is current (using windows
update. My son's computer will be a new install of XP Home w/sp1 and the
security cd thru October.
If I run Update on my computer I get nothing.



"Nancy" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:339301c48791$fe592800$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> JA D,
> waiting for sp2 cd is the right idea however, browsing
> the net without the security patches is risky so you're
> right in the way you think.
> since not all the win patches are needed by your
> computer, it is definitively that you do not have to
> download them all, this would save you time and money
> especially that you're on a 56k dialup connection.
> the best way that i see it is to run windows update
> manually and let it search for the patches needed by
> your computer. once the search is over, note the patches
> numbers and download them later on your ease.
>
> hope i understood your question and came with a help to
> you.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version
> of SP2.
> >My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while
> installing a new drive.
> >We have the October security CD which takes him through
> the Oct 15, 2003
> >updates.
> >We want to download ahead of time updates to make his
> machine current. He
> >will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-
> line for a final
> >update check.
> >
> >How can we get a definative list of which files to
> download from the windows
> >Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >.
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

JA D wrote:

> We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
> My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
> We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
> updates.
> We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
> will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
> update check.
>
> How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the windows
> Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>
>
Stay away from SP2 at all costs. Have a read here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130

Do you really want that kind of trouble?

 

[nobody]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I just did that with my old computer running '98. I loaded and installed
all the updates on the cd, then went online and scanned for the rest. There
were quite a few, but they all installed fine. I didn't have any problems.


"JA D" <pejd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0hoIV5hEHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Nancy thanks.
> I think I need to explain better. My computer is current (using windows
> update. My son's computer will be a new install of XP Home w/sp1 and the
> security cd thru October.
> If I run Update on my computer I get nothing.
>
>
>
> "Nancy" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:339301c48791$fe592800$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> > JA D,
> > waiting for sp2 cd is the right idea however, browsing
> > the net without the security patches is risky so you're
> > right in the way you think.
> > since not all the win patches are needed by your
> > computer, it is definitively that you do not have to
> > download them all, this would save you time and money
> > especially that you're on a 56k dialup connection.
> > the best way that i see it is to run windows update
> > manually and let it search for the patches needed by
> > your computer. once the search is over, note the patches
> > numbers and download them later on your ease.
> >
> > hope i understood your question and came with a help to
> > you.
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version
> > of SP2.
> > >My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while
> > installing a new drive.
> > >We have the October security CD which takes him through
> > the Oct 15, 2003
> > >updates.
> > >We want to download ahead of time updates to make his
> > machine current. He
> > >will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-
> > line for a final
> > >update check.
> > >
> > >How can we get a definative list of which files to
> > download from the windows
> > >Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

AnnonUser wrote:
> JA D wrote:
>
>> We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
>> My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new
>> drive. We have the October security CD which takes him through the
>> Oct 15, 2003 updates.
>> We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine
>> current. He will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going
>> on-line for a final update check.
>>
>> How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the
>> windows Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>>
>>
> Stay away from SP2 at all costs. Have a read here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130
>
> Do you really want that kind of trouble?

/What/ kind of trouble?!

You are a cretinous moron - or is that a moronic cretin? I - and many others
I've spoken to - have had no problems after installing SP2 and we all have
at least one application on that list. I have several. All the problems are
soluble.There is only one disasterous issue that I am aware of and that's
with the Prescott, but you wouldn't know what that is, would you?

All other issues are either solvable by the application developer, or are
PEBCAK errors.



--
My great-grandfather was born and raised in Elgin - did he eventually
lose his marbles?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

> AnnonUser wrote:
>
>>JA D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
>>>My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new
>>>drive. We have the October security CD which takes him through the
>>>Oct 15, 2003 updates.
>>>We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine
>>>current. He will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going
>>>on-line for a final update check.
>>>
>>>How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the
>>>windows Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Stay away from SP2 at all costs. Have a read here:
>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130
>>
>>Do you really want that kind of trouble?
>
>
> /What/ kind of trouble?!
>
> You are a cretinous moron - or is that a moronic cretin? I - and many others
> I've spoken to - have had no problems after installing SP2 and we all have
> at least one application on that list. I have several. All the problems are
> soluble.There is only one disasterous issue that I am aware of and that's
> with the Prescott, but you wouldn't know what that is, would you?
>
> All other issues are either solvable by the application developer, or are
> PEBCAK errors.
>
>
>
Yeah, and you'd buy a car that was released in this kind of a state.

People should have to wait for developers to RECONFORM the products that
were rendered nonfunctional by MS stupidity!

Come off it, you moron. All you have to do is read the posts to realize
that SP2 is a disaster.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

So out of the thousands of pieces of software, you find 35 that don't work,
and that some how makes SP2 worthless?

Those programs aren't working properly because they a) weren't coded
properly b) took shortcuts in the coding or c) affect base level stuff.

SP2's new security features force programs to follow the rules more
strictly, of course a few aren't going to work.

Do you have an educated reason why we should stay from SP2?

I know dozens of people that have had ZERO problems with it, the people that
are having problems with it are a minority.

Yes, you can temporarly avoid these problems by staying away from SP2. I
guess us SP2 users will have to make due, in a world with a few problems,
but works faster, and with less risks.

It would be like saying a theme park is worthless because it's inconvieniant
to have your bags checked when entering.

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

"AnnonUser" <poster@annon.net> wrote in message
news:%23sJEQf5hEHA.644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> JA D wrote:
>
>> We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
>> My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
>> We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
>> updates.
>> We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
>> will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
>> update check.
>>
>> How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the
>> windows
>> Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>>
>>
> Stay away from SP2 at all costs. Have a read here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130
>
> Do you really want that kind of trouble?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

OMG, please, read some documentation before trolling here.

See below...

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

"AnnonUser" <poster@annon.net> wrote in message
news:ORTR3I7hEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, and you'd buy a car that was released in this kind of a state.
>
> People should have to wait for developers to RECONFORM the products that
> were rendered nonfunctional by MS stupidity!
>

It's not MS's stupidity, it's quite the contrary, MS is forcing developers
to not be stupid.
Those programs aren't working properly because they a) weren't coded
properly b) took shortcuts in the coding or c) affect base level stuff.

SP2's new security features force programs to follow the rules more
strictly, of course a few aren't going to work.

Do you have an educated reason why we should stay from SP2?

I know dozens of people that have had ZERO problems with it, the people that
are having problems with it are a minority.

Yes, you can temporarly avoid these problems by staying away from SP2. I
guess us SP2 users will have to make due, in a world with a few problems,
but works faster, and with less risks.


> Come off it, you moron. All you have to do is read the posts to realize
> that SP2 is a disaster.

And of course there are going to be posts here about problems! What do you
think people post here about? How the weather is?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Right, on YOUR computer you get nothing.. You must (at least) activate the
windows firewall on your son's computer, then go online to WinUpdate with
HIS computer to get a list of necessary updates... though I suspect most are
already on the Oct. CD, there should be some 5-8 MB to get to have it
up-to-date...

--
Tumppi
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================

"JA D" <pejd@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:e0hoIV5hEHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Nancy thanks.
> I think I need to explain better. My computer is current (using windows
> update. My son's computer will be a new install of XP Home w/sp1 and the
> security cd thru October.
> If I run Update on my computer I get nothing.
>
>
>
> "Nancy" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:339301c48791$fe592800$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> > JA D,
> > waiting for sp2 cd is the right idea however, browsing
> > the net without the security patches is risky so you're
> > right in the way you think.
> > since not all the win patches are needed by your
> > computer, it is definitively that you do not have to
> > download them all, this would save you time and money
> > especially that you're on a 56k dialup connection.
> > the best way that i see it is to run windows update
> > manually and let it search for the patches needed by
> > your computer. once the search is over, note the patches
> > numbers and download them later on your ease.
> >
> > hope i understood your question and came with a help to
> > you.
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version
> > of SP2.
> > >My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while
> > installing a new drive.
> > >We have the October security CD which takes him through
> > the Oct 15, 2003
> > >updates.
> > >We want to download ahead of time updates to make his
> > machine current. He
> > >will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-
> > line for a final
> > >update check.
> > >
> > >How can we get a definative list of which files to
> > download from the windows
> > >Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

P.Cyr wrote:
> So out of the thousands of pieces of software, you find 35 that don't work,
> and that some how makes SP2 worthless?
>
> Those programs aren't working properly because they a) weren't coded
> properly b) took shortcuts in the coding or c) affect base level stuff.
>
> SP2's new security features force programs to follow the rules more
> strictly, of course a few aren't going to work.
>
> Do you have an educated reason why we should stay from SP2?
>
> I know dozens of people that have had ZERO problems with it, the people that
> are having problems with it are a minority.
>
> Yes, you can temporarly avoid these problems by staying away from SP2. I
> guess us SP2 users will have to make due, in a world with a few problems,
> but works faster, and with less risks.
>
> It would be like saying a theme park is worthless because it's inconvieniant
> to have your bags checked when entering.
>
No, it's like saying a car is worthless because the wheels come off at
highway speeds.
Software conflicts aren't the only problem. There are also continuous
reboots and BSODs. Yeah, SP2 is a helpful, necessary update. Not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"AnnonUser" <poster@annon.net> wrote in message
news:%231ny%23rEiEHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> P.Cyr wrote:
> > So out of the thousands of pieces of software, you find 35 that don't
work,
> > and that some how makes SP2 worthless?
> >
> > Those programs aren't working properly because they a) weren't coded
> > properly b) took shortcuts in the coding or c) affect base level stuff.
> >
> > SP2's new security features force programs to follow the rules more
> > strictly, of course a few aren't going to work.
> >
> > Do you have an educated reason why we should stay from SP2?
> >
> > I know dozens of people that have had ZERO problems with it, the people
that
> > are having problems with it are a minority.
> >
> > Yes, you can temporarly avoid these problems by staying away from SP2.
I
> > guess us SP2 users will have to make due, in a world with a few
problems,
> > but works faster, and with less risks.
> >
> > It would be like saying a theme park is worthless because it's
inconvieniant
> > to have your bags checked when entering.
> >
> No, it's like saying a car is worthless because the wheels come off at
> highway speeds.
> Software conflicts aren't the only problem. There are also continuous
> reboots and BSODs. Yeah, SP2 is a helpful, necessary update. Not.

Consider this, there's a new version of Download.Ject that is now being used
on the Internet and can compromise fully patched Windows XP machines.

Machines running SP2 (Service Pack 2) for XP are not vulnerable.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1638184,00.asp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:41:45 -0500, "JA D" <pejd@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
>My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
>We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
>updates.
>We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
>will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
>update check.
>
>How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the windows
>Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.

In this situation I would probably not install any patches at
all. Instead I would activate the firewall and run the computer
with miminized Internet exposure until the CD arrives. I think
it won't take very long.

Perhaps you can have a friend download and burn the CD, or you
can take the computer to a friend who has a fast Internet
connection and install Service Pack 2.

But if you don't want to go that way, you should use
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com and download and install all
critical updates.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

 

[Vile]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Any idea when the disk will be avail? I would rather wait for the CD
myself. Wait til all the bugs are worked out.

"JA D" <pejd@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<O7Yx3z4hEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
> My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
> We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
> updates.
> We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
> will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
> update check.
>
> How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the windows
> Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

And you say that without a single reference.

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

"AnnonUser" <poster@annon.net> wrote in message
news:%231ny%23rEiEHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> P.Cyr wrote:
>> So out of the thousands of pieces of software, you find 35 that don't
>> work, and that some how makes SP2 worthless?
>>
>> Those programs aren't working properly because they a) weren't coded
>> properly b) took shortcuts in the coding or c) affect base level stuff.
>>
>> SP2's new security features force programs to follow the rules more
>> strictly, of course a few aren't going to work.
>>
>> Do you have an educated reason why we should stay from SP2?
>>
>> I know dozens of people that have had ZERO problems with it, the people
>> that are having problems with it are a minority.
>>
>> Yes, you can temporarly avoid these problems by staying away from SP2. I
>> guess us SP2 users will have to make due, in a world with a few problems,
>> but works faster, and with less risks.
>>
>> It would be like saying a theme park is worthless because it's
>> inconvieniant to have your bags checked when entering.
>>
> No, it's like saying a car is worthless because the wheels come off at
> highway speeds.
> Software conflicts aren't the only problem. There are also continuous
> reboots and BSODs. Yeah, SP2 is a helpful, necessary update. Not.

 

[Rock]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

JA D wrote:

> We have 56k dial up and plan to wait for the CD version of SP2.
> My son is doing a clean install of XP w/SP1 while installing a new drive.
> We have the October security CD which takes him through the Oct 15, 2003
> updates.
> We want to download ahead of time updates to make his machine current. He
> will burn them a on a CD and install prior to going on-line for a final
> update check.
>
> How can we get a definative list of which files to download from the windows
> Udatye Catalog to make this happen. Thanks.
>
>

Turn on the firewall and connect to the windows update site. Let it
scan for updates, note the ones it says the system needs then install
them either using AU or download them using the windows update catalog.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

P.Cyr wrote:

> And you say that without a single reference.
>
The continuous reboot and BSOD problem posts are all the reference I need.
Again, would you buy a car that rolled off the assembly line in this
condition?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I'm not talking about the references you need, I'm talking about the
references I need, and anyone else needs, to take your word that SP2 is
garbage.

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

"AnnonUser" <poster@annon.net> wrote in message
news:uvgXT0QiEHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> P.Cyr wrote:
>
>> And you say that without a single reference.
>>
> The continuous reboot and BSOD problem posts are all the reference I need.
> Again, would you buy a car that rolled off the assembly line in this
> condition?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

BSOD's pretty much became a thing of the past for most of us with the
release of Windows XP, and although I have had some since ungrading they are
infrequent and to the best of my knowledge never due to Microsoft.
Oftentimes they _are_ because of badly coded third-party software or
hardware problems. Anyway Paul this disagreement is just going to roll on
and on. Best not to repeatedly respond to people who fail to substantiate
claims and can't even abbreviate the word anonymous.

Nik

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Nik Blackwell" <nik_blackwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23krpioKjEHA.1712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> BSOD's pretty much became a thing of the past for most of us with the
> release of Windows XP, and although I have had some since ungrading they
are
> infrequent and to the best of my knowledge never due to Microsoft.
> Oftentimes they _are_ because of badly coded third-party software or
> hardware problems. Anyway Paul this disagreement is just going to roll on
> and on. Best not to repeatedly respond to people who fail to substantiate
> claims and can't even abbreviate the word anonymous.


I've been running Windows NT (XP is NT version 6.0) since the version 3.1
pre-release (1993 or so), and to you I say what a load of horse hockey.

NT is a protected operating system. One of the great things about a
protected operating system is that it protects itself from 3rd party stupid
programmers tricks. Windows 3.x and Windows 9x were not protected OS, and
what you say is very true of them. NT 3.1 was near bullet proof, but NT has
been getting worse and worse as is becomes so complex with a gazillion
"features". XP SP1 was an improvement over Windows 2000, but it looks to me
like Service Pack II is a bug filled disaster.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Check your version number! Windows XP _is_ version 5.1, call up the System
properties page or type "ver" at the command prompt.
I've been running SP2 for weeks now without a hitch. Sure if people use
Automatic/Windows Update for SP2 they might well have problems, but many of
them might have been there in the first instance. Many companies are
treating SP2 almost as a full OS upgrade, which is a bit of an overreaction.
But when you consider, that SP1 was mainly a bunch of fixes, and stock
programs such as DirectX, Windows Media Player, etc., weren't changed,
you've really got to see that the first release of XP and SP2 are almost as
different as XP was to 2000. So what is essentially not that different from
installing a new OS _over_ an old one, which is always problematic, is
always going to cause more headache than when you perform a clean install.

Nik


"Morty McSnerd" <morty@nospambutifyouwantotrywhitehouse.gov> wrote in
message news:ezzaKJgjEHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Nik Blackwell" <nik_blackwell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23krpioKjEHA.1712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> BSOD's pretty much became a thing of the past for most of us with the
>> release of Windows XP, and although I have had some since ungrading they
> are
>> infrequent and to the best of my knowledge never due to Microsoft.
>> Oftentimes they _are_ because of badly coded third-party software or
>> hardware problems. Anyway Paul this disagreement is just going to roll on
>> and on. Best not to repeatedly respond to people who fail to substantiate
>> claims and can't even abbreviate the word anonymous.
>
>
> I've been running Windows NT (XP is NT version 6.0) since the version 3.1
> pre-release (1993 or so), and to you I say what a load of horse hockey.
>
> NT is a protected operating system. One of the great things about a
> protected operating system is that it protects itself from 3rd party
> stupid
> programmers tricks. Windows 3.x and Windows 9x were not protected OS, and
> what you say is very true of them. NT 3.1 was near bullet proof, but NT
> has
> been getting worse and worse as is becomes so complex with a gazillion
> "features". XP SP1 was an improvement over Windows 2000, but it looks to
> me
> like Service Pack II is a bug filled disaster.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Nik Blackwell wrote:

> BSOD's pretty much became a thing of the past for most of us with the
> release of Windows XP, and although I have had some since ungrading they are
> infrequent and to the best of my knowledge never due to Microsoft.
> Oftentimes they _are_ because of badly coded third-party software or
> hardware problems. Anyway Paul this disagreement is just going to roll on
> and on. Best not to repeatedly respond to people who fail to substantiate
> claims and can't even abbreviate the word anonymous.
>
> Nik
>
>
I did that, you moron, so I can easily search for my posts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Don't call me a moron you fool! How is it moronic to not know that you're
hiding behind a misspelt abbreviation for a reason? On what undisputable
evidence was I to base that judgement? Why not use a name (real or
otherwise) like most of the other posters here, who aren't using Microsoft's
own site, to post messages.

Nik


"AnnonUser" <User@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eQhjHUnkEHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Nik Blackwell wrote:
>
>> BSOD's pretty much became a thing of the past for most of us with the
>> release of Windows XP, and although I have had some since ungrading they
>> are infrequent and to the best of my knowledge never due to Microsoft.
>> Oftentimes they _are_ because of badly coded third-party software or
>> hardware problems. Anyway Paul this disagreement is just going to roll on
>> and on. Best not to repeatedly respond to people who fail to substantiate
>> claims and can't even abbreviate the word anonymous.
>>
>> Nik
> I did that, you moron, so I can easily search for my posts.