Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SP2 Paranoia

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
October 9, 2004 4:49:40 PM

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

My new computer (middle of Oct build) shows it has all hotfixes for SP2
except for a final KB.

I ordered (and received in less than a week!) the SP2 disk anyway as the
box isn't connected to the net yet.

I have a good firewall, AV (Zone Alarm) and anti-spyware and can already
block pop-ups/ads and spam. (I do connect my laptop to it and transfer
data from the web, I do not use OE as my primary browser but have some
old e-mail I refer to.)

1. Hearing the scary stories about SP2, I'd rather not slide the disk in
and let it have its way--if, there is only one "fix" missing, is that a
reasonable concern?

2. I obtained the info on the intalled fixes using Belarc---Should I
trust it?

3. Are there any hidden goodies on the disk that I should be aware of
(or does the SP2 section at MS cover everything)?

4. The SP2 site made my eyes glaze over. It is difficult to separate the
caveats from the true concerns or dangers. (let alone the horror stories
in these groups)

Other than the final KB that I appear to be missing, what if any
features on the disk would be essential to install?

Again, Belarc shows "SP2", a list of fixes (all checked) and the KB with
an X---
As I can't go to the Update site and am leary about letting the disk run
wild, am I prolly pretty safe for the time being?

That is, might I do more harm than good by "using" the disk (other than
"extracting" something I don't know about, yet)

!A side question---I dual boot w/W2k w/SP4 does that complicate things?

When I re-installed FrontPage 97 in W2k recently (I only use it to
access/maintain my webs) it called for a re-install of SP4?!

I have yet to install FP97 in XP as I don't need any more problems.

Is that an undue concern--or should I go ahead and install FP97?

Michael

More about : sp2 paranoia

Anonymous
October 9, 2004 4:49:41 PM

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

SP2 is a solid, secure release. It is a major "Critical Update"
for Windows XP and updates over 5 million lines of code,
enabling much stronger security, stability, and affords a tad better
performance benefit. SP2 was extensively tested on hundreds of
thousands of various computer configurations over a period of
many, many months. I would encourage you to install it at your
earliest convenience.

You may wish to view the following:

Top 10 Reasons to Install Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/topten.mspx

List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2

Learn About Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx

Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/m...

What to Know Before You Download and Install Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sp2_whattoknow.m...

Windows XP Service Pack 2 Checklist
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Jupiter Jones]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Michael" wrote:

| My new computer (middle of Oct build) shows it has all hotfixes for SP2
| except for a final KB.
|
| I ordered (and received in less than a week!) the SP2 disk anyway as the
| box isn't connected to the net yet.
|
| I have a good firewall, AV (Zone Alarm) and anti-spyware and can already
| block pop-ups/ads and spam. (I do connect my laptop to it and transfer
| data from the web, I do not use OE as my primary browser but have some
| old e-mail I refer to.)
|
| 1. Hearing the scary stories about SP2, I'd rather not slide the disk in
| and let it have its way--if, there is only one "fix" missing, is that a
| reasonable concern?
|
| 2. I obtained the info on the intalled fixes using Belarc---Should I
| trust it?
|
| 3. Are there any hidden goodies on the disk that I should be aware of
| (or does the SP2 section at MS cover everything)?
|
| 4. The SP2 site made my eyes glaze over. It is difficult to separate the
| caveats from the true concerns or dangers. (let alone the horror stories
| in these groups)
|
| Other than the final KB that I appear to be missing, what if any
| features on the disk would be essential to install?
|
| Again, Belarc shows "SP2", a list of fixes (all checked) and the KB with
| an X---
| As I can't go to the Update site and am leary about letting the disk run
| wild, am I prolly pretty safe for the time being?
|
| That is, might I do more harm than good by "using" the disk (other than
| "extracting" something I don't know about, yet)
|
| !A side question---I dual boot w/W2k w/SP4 does that complicate things?
|
| When I re-installed FrontPage 97 in W2k recently (I only use it to
| access/maintain my webs) it called for a re-install of SP4?!
|
| I have yet to install FP97 in XP as I don't need any more problems.
|
| Is that an undue concern--or should I go ahead and install FP97?
|
| Michael
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 4:49:41 PM

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

With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear to be on
poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the hard drive (a
desirable thing to do following installations), but other than that, as Nike
says, 'just do it.'

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:E7R9d.515639$OB3.38845@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> My new computer (middle of Oct build) shows it has all hotfixes for SP2
> except for a final KB.
>
> I ordered (and received in less than a week!) the SP2 disk anyway as the
> box isn't connected to the net yet.
>
> I have a good firewall, AV (Zone Alarm) and anti-spyware and can already
> block pop-ups/ads and spam. (I do connect my laptop to it and transfer
> data from the web, I do not use OE as my primary browser but have some old
> e-mail I refer to.)
>
> 1. Hearing the scary stories about SP2, I'd rather not slide the disk in
> and let it have its way--if, there is only one "fix" missing, is that a
> reasonable concern?
>
> 2. I obtained the info on the intalled fixes using Belarc---Should I trust
> it?
>
> 3. Are there any hidden goodies on the disk that I should be aware of (or
> does the SP2 section at MS cover everything)?
>
> 4. The SP2 site made my eyes glaze over. It is difficult to separate the
> caveats from the true concerns or dangers. (let alone the horror stories
> in these groups)
>
> Other than the final KB that I appear to be missing, what if any features
> on the disk would be essential to install?
>
> Again, Belarc shows "SP2", a list of fixes (all checked) and the KB with
> an X---
> As I can't go to the Update site and am leary about letting the disk run
> wild, am I prolly pretty safe for the time being?
>
> That is, might I do more harm than good by "using" the disk (other than
> "extracting" something I don't know about, yet)
>
> !A side question---I dual boot w/W2k w/SP4 does that complicate things?
>
> When I re-installed FrontPage 97 in W2k recently (I only use it to
> access/maintain my webs) it called for a re-install of SP4?!
>
> I have yet to install FP97 in XP as I don't need any more problems.
>
> Is that an undue concern--or should I go ahead and install FP97?
>
> Michael
Related resources
October 9, 2004 5:02:09 PM

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

On 10/9/2004 7:49 AM, Michael wrote:
> My new computer (middle of Oct build) shows it has all hotfixes for SP2
^^^^^
Sept, Duh?

> except for a final KB.
>
> I ordered (and received in less than a week!) the SP2 disk anyway as the
> box isn't connected to the net yet.
>
> I have a good firewall, AV (Zone Alarm) and anti-spyware and can already
> block pop-ups/ads and spam. (I do connect my laptop to it and transfer
> data from the web, I do not use OE as my primary browser but have some
> old e-mail I refer to.)
>
> 1. Hearing the scary stories about SP2, I'd rather not slide the disk in
> and let it have its way--if, there is only one "fix" missing, is that a
> reasonable concern?
>
> 2. I obtained the info on the intalled fixes using Belarc---Should I
> trust it?
>
> 3. Are there any hidden goodies on the disk that I should be aware of
> (or does the SP2 section at MS cover everything)?
>
> 4. The SP2 site made my eyes glaze over. It is difficult to separate the
> caveats from the true concerns or dangers. (let alone the horror stories
> in these groups)
>
> Other than the final KB that I appear to be missing, what if any
> features on the disk would be essential to install?
>
> Again, Belarc shows "SP2", a list of fixes (all checked) and the KB with
> an X---
> As I can't go to the Update site and am leary about letting the disk run
> wild, am I prolly pretty safe for the time being?
>
> That is, might I do more harm than good by "using" the disk (other than
> "extracting" something I don't know about, yet)
>
> !A side question---I dual boot w/W2k w/SP4 does that complicate things?
>
> When I re-installed FrontPage 97 in W2k recently (I only use it to
> access/maintain my webs) it called for a re-install of SP4?!
>
> I have yet to install FP97 in XP as I don't need any more problems.
>
> Is that an undue concern--or should I go ahead and install FP97?
>
> Michael
October 9, 2004 5:19:27 PM

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

On 10/9/2004 8:04 AM, Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> SP2 is a solid, secure release. It is a major "Critical Update"
> for Windows XP and updates over 5 million lines of code,
> enabling much stronger security, stability, and affords a tad better
> performance benefit. SP2 was extensively tested on hundreds of
> thousands of various computer configurations over a period of
> many, many months. I would encourage you to install it at your
> earliest convenience.
>
> You may wish to view the following:
>
> Top 10 Reasons to Install Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/topten.mspx
>
> List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2
>
> Learn About Windows XP Service Pack 2
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/preinstall.mspx
>
> Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/m...
>
> What to Know Before You Download and Install Windows XP Service Pack 2
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sp2_whattoknow.m...
>
> Windows XP Service Pack 2 Checklist
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
>
> [Courtesy of MS-MVP Jupiter Jones]
>

Thanks Colin, was a leary to ask, things have been dicey here for me!


Please address my FP97 concerns--

Aslo, you say slide that SP4 CD in and let it go--------->?
October 9, 2004 5:19:29 PM

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

MS really dropped the ball with the newer FrontPage editions, and they are not worth the money. best to buy MAcromedia DreamWeaver for more, and get better pricing on future upgrades.


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:eMXiGUgrEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Learn how to acquire FrontPage 2003 and order it today
> http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/howtobuy/defa...
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
>
> Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Michael" wrote:
> |
> | Please address my FP97 concerns--
>
October 9, 2004 10:00:39 PM

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

On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:

> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
> problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear to be on
> poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the hard drive (a
> desirable thing to do following installations), but other than that, as Nike
> says, 'just do it.'

Thanks----more questions though....further down--->

Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through
several large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't accept
the version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem to be more
particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or Diskeeper
"does more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is rather
basic----are there any options?



Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the
sites were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.

I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP extentions
to remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've been using more
current editors for years.

An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also dual-boot
w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the effect: I can't
wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter into the equation
(its SP4)?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no prob?
I do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.

Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a
partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space in the
XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if there is a
problem.

Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?

Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again do
not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I have
good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....

!!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let me
know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then
again, my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
Activation routine---and never did activate?!)

If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 10:00:40 PM

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

Michael wrote:
> On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
>> problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear to
>> be on poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the hard
>> drive (a desirable thing to do following installations), but other
>> than that, as Nike says, 'just do it.'
>
>
> Thanks----more questions though....further down--->
>
> Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through
> several large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't accept
> the version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem to be more
> particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or Diskeeper
> "does more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is rather
> basic----are there any options?
>
>
>
> Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the
> sites were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.
>
> I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP extentions
> to remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've been using more
> current editors for years.
>
> An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also dual-boot
> w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the effect: I can't
> wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter into the equation
> (its SP4)?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no prob? I
> do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.
>
> Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a
> partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space in the
> XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if there is a
> problem.
>
> Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?
>
> Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again do
> not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I have
> good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....
>
> !!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let me
> know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then
> again, my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
> install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
> Activation routine---and never did activate?!)
>
> If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?

You might want to try asking concise questions using complete sentences
and standard punctuation. This is not a nitpicking dig--it's very hard
to determine exactly what you're asking.
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 10:00:40 PM

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

Standard Diskeeper 8 works with XP Home only. XP Pro requires Diskeeper 8
PRO. You may need to upgrade. Since the standard version works with all
versions of Windows prior to XP, you probably did not notice that there was
a different version required for XP Pro.

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:bHV9d.681182$Gx4.305550@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
>> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
>> problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear to be
>> on poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the hard drive
>> (a desirable thing to do following installations), but other than that,
>> as Nike says, 'just do it.'
>
> Thanks----more questions though....further down--->
>
> Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through several
> large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't accept the
> version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem to be more
> particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or Diskeeper "does
> more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is rather basic----are
> there any options?
>
>
>
> Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the sites
> were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.
>
> I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP extentions to
> remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've been using more
> current editors for years.
>
> An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also dual-boot
> w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the effect: I can't
> wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter into the equation
> (its SP4)?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no prob? I
> do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.
>
> Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a
> partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space in the
> XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if there is a
> problem.
>
> Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?
>
> Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again do not
> use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I have good
> spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....
>
> !!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let me
> know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then again,
> my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
> install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
> Activation routine---and never did activate?!)
>
> If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?
October 10, 2004 3:03:38 AM

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

On 10/9/2004 2:15 PM, Phil McCracken wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>
>>> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
>>> problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear
>>> to be on poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the
>>> hard drive (a desirable thing to do following installations), but
>>> other than that, as Nike says, 'just do it.'
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks----more questions though....further down--->
>>
>> Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through
>> several large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't
>> accept the version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem
>> to be more particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or
>> Diskeeper "does more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is
>> rather basic----are there any options?
>>
>>
>>
>> Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the
>> sites were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.
>>
>> I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP extentions
>> to remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've been using
>> more current editors for years.
>>
>> An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also
>> dual-boot w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
>> effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
>> into the equation (its SP4)?
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no prob?
>> I do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.
>>
>> Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a
>> partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space in
>> the XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if there
>> is a problem.
>>
>> Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?
>>
>> Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again do
>> not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I have
>> good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....
>>
>> !!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let
>> me know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then
>> again, my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
>> install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
>> Activation routine---and never did activate?!)
>>
>> If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?
>
>
> You might want to try asking concise questions using complete sentences
> and standard punctuation. This is not a nitpicking dig--it's very hard
> to determine exactly what you're asking.
Or, you didn't have any answers.

A hint (when you see this at the end of a sentence [?]. That means I'm
asking a question.

It really isn't to tough, Phil. If you're reading and see that symbol,
work backwork, as the words before one of these [?] is probably a clue
that I need an answer.

So, either there was nothing in the post you *could* address, or yes,
one might consider you to be "nitpicking".

If you find it to not be a true question, rather it is a stylist
gesture, feel free to not answer.

I have no problem in obtaining answers from others. You are the only
one that seems lost. No, that suggests it is not me.
October 10, 2004 3:03:39 AM

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

Except that most of ther sentences ending with a "?" look more like statements, than question. Here's a hint; most questions (98%) begin with "How, What, When, Where, Who, and Why".

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message news:e7_9d.518374$OB3.425759@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> On 10/9/2004 2:15 PM, Phil McCracken wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>
>>>> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have no
>>>> problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems appear
>>>> to be on poorly maintained machines. I suggest you defragment the
>>>> hard drive (a desirable thing to do following installations), but
>>>> other than that, as Nike says, 'just do it.'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks----more questions though....further down--->
>>>
>>> Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through
>>> several large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't
>>> accept the version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem
>>> to be more particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or
>>> Diskeeper "does more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is
>>> rather basic----are there any options?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the
>>> sites were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.
>>>
>>> I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP extentions
>>> to remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've been using
>>> more current editors for years.
>>>
>>> An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also
>>> dual-boot w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
>>> effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
>>> into the equation (its SP4)?
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no prob?
>>> I do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.
>>>
>>> Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a
>>> partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space in
>>> the XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if there
>>> is a problem.
>>>
>>> Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?
>>>
>>> Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again do
>>> not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I have
>>> good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....
>>>
>>> !!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let
>>> me know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then
>>> again, my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
>>> install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
>>> Activation routine---and never did activate?!)
>>>
>>> If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?
>>
>>
>> You might want to try asking concise questions using complete sentences
>> and standard punctuation. This is not a nitpicking dig--it's very hard
>> to determine exactly what you're asking.
> Or, you didn't have any answers.
>
> A hint (when you see this at the end of a sentence [?]. That means I'm
> asking a question.
>
> It really isn't to tough, Phil. If you're reading and see that symbol,
> work backwork, as the words before one of these [?] is probably a clue
> that I need an answer.
>
> So, either there was nothing in the post you *could* address, or yes,
> one might consider you to be "nitpicking".
>
> If you find it to not be a true question, rather it is a stylist
> gesture, feel free to not answer.
>
> I have no problem in obtaining answers from others. You are the only
> one that seems lost. No, that suggests it is not me.
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 12:28:39 PM

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

Michael wrote:

> On 10/9/2004 2:15 PM, Phil McCracken wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2004 10:58 AM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>>>
>>>> With a new computer and newly installed copy of XP you should have
>>>> no problems with installation of SP2. The majority of problems
>>>> appear to be on poorly maintained machines. I suggest you
>>>> defragment the hard drive (a desirable thing to do following
>>>> installations), but other than that, as Nike says, 'just do it.'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks----more questions though....further down--->
>>>
>>> Though not needed, I defrag at the end of he day...it zaps through
>>> several large partitions in a flash. On the other hand? XP didn't
>>> accept the version of Diskeeper I use on W2k....? That version seem
>>> to be more particular, that is the MS version is either very fast or
>>> Diskeeper "does more?". Am I missing something...the XP defrag is
>>> rather basic----are there any options?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actualy, I only used FP as I had a contrac with ATT and 90+% of the
>>> sites were on FP servers---as my own, which has been dormant.
>>>
>>> I spoke to may host about changing it, I don't have many FP
>>> extentions to remove, so I'll probably bail on the FP server. I've
>>> been using more current editors for years.
>>>
>>> An added concern? When I was having difficuty with XP (I also
>>> dual-boot w/W2k)? One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
>>> effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
>>> into the equation (its SP4)?
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no
>>> prob? I do have a DOS partition, XP, and W2k follow.
>>>
>>> Without reading? Is it a standard SP install where one can designate
>>> a partition to "store" the setup? While I do have 900 meg of space
>>> in the XP partition, I may want to keep it around for a few days if
>>> there is a problem.
>>>
>>> Curious? Who so much space if the whole package is under 300 meg?
>>>
>>> Also, my XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and again
>>> do not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I
>>> have good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....
>>>
>>> !!!If I am only missing the final KB...can someone be concise and let
>>> me know my benefits? I realize we only hear the bad news here? Then
>>> again, my stories have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh
>>> install---twice?). (Not to mention that I went in and out of the
>>> Activation routine---and never did activate?!)
>>>
>>> If you were me, I believe you might be a bit wary as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> You might want to try asking concise questions using complete
>> sentences and standard punctuation. This is not a nitpicking dig--it's
>> very hard to determine exactly what you're asking.
>
> Or, you didn't have any answers.
>
> A hint (when you see this at the end of a sentence [?]. That means I'm
> asking a question.
>
> It really isn't to tough, Phil. If you're reading and see that symbol,
> work backwork, as the words before one of these [?] is probably a clue
> that I need an answer.
>
> So, either there was nothing in the post you *could* address, or yes,
> one might consider you to be "nitpicking".
>
> If you find it to not be a true question, rather it is a stylist
> gesture, feel free to not answer.
>
> I have no problem in obtaining answers from others. You are the only
> one that seems lost. No, that suggests it is not me.

Look, Mike, you don't know (or don't care about) the difference between
"to" and "too." It's a simple fact of life: If you are asking for help,
there's some obligation on your part to ask for it clearly and
unambiguously, and not whine when someone asks politely for
clarification. I had problems with an SP2 installation and *might* be
able to help. I can't give an answer, though, if I don't know what the
question is.
October 10, 2004 5:36:51 PM

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

On 10/9/2004 6:55 PM, Tom wrote:

> Except that most of ther sentences ending with a "?" look more like statements, than question. Here's a hint; most questions (98%) begin with "How, What, When, Where, Who, and Why".


How's this Tom?

1. I dual boot w. W2k. One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
into the equation? (it has SP4)

2. I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no
prob--Was that an empty threat? (My setup has a DOS partition, XP,
and W2k follows.)

3.Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a partition to
"store" the setup?

4. Who is so much space necessary for SP install (900 meg) if the whole
package is under 300 meg?

5. Does it really take two hours?

6. My XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and do
not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I
have good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....What is SP2
giving me that I'm missing?

7. If I am *only* missing the final KB...can someone be concise and
let me know my benefits? Name five?

8. I realize we only hear the bad news here. Then again, my stories
have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh install---twice?).
(Not to mention that I went in and out of the Activation routine---
and never needed to re-activate?!)
What are the top 3 risks and consequenses one faces with SP2?

There ya go, buddy. Questions that dependon on one's point of
view--but question. I'm here to *not* get the standard company line.
Unless one beieves the the Man is never wrong...which would require a
leap of faith.

--
Lead, follow or get of of the way.

I'll help you if I can.

If you don't have a solution? I don't want to hear from you.
October 10, 2004 5:36:52 PM

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

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message news:TVaad.522158$OB3.60302@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>
> There ya go, buddy. Questions that dependon on one's point of
> view--but question. I'm here to *not* get the standard company line.
> Unless one beieves the the Man is never wrong...which would require a
> leap of faith.

Well, you back pedaled now! Look, if you're going to complain about not asking literal questions by making statements that you did, by simply ending them with your own meaning of corresponding symbols, you shouldn't expect to have the respondent comply to your usage of curved English.


> Lead, follow or get of of the way.

Ask, don't complain, or don't bother!

>
> I'll help you if I can.

Is that a statement or a question, could be either using your standards?

>
> If you don't have a solution? I don't want to hear from you.
>

If you don't have a REAL question, don't ask for solutions!
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 5:36:52 PM

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

Michael wrote:

> On 10/9/2004 6:55 PM, Tom wrote:
>
>> Except that most of ther sentences ending with a "?" look more like
>> statements, than question. Here's a hint; most questions (98%) begin
>> with "How, What, When, Where, Who, and Why".
>
>
>
> How's this Tom?
>
> 1. I dual boot w. W2k. One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
> effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
> into the equation? (it has SP4)

SP2 is for XP, it's a separate issue. 2k doesn't enter into the
equation. Also, that sounds like a warning, not a threat.


> 2. I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no
> prob--Was that an empty threat? (My setup has a DOS partition, XP,
> and W2k follows.)

Makes no sense. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have
multiple operating systems on their own partitions.

> 3.Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a partition to
> "store" the setup?

Is *what* "a standard SP install"? To store *what* setup? If you have
XP on its own partition, you can install the service pack and then
uninstall it if you choose, assuming you follow the instructions the
install program gives you. If you've downloaded the full "network" SP2
package (also good for individual computers) you can store it where ever
you want.


> 4. Who is so much space necessary for SP install (900 meg) if the whole
> package is under 300 meg?

Because of temporary files. The final install won't be that big. In
fact, if you're up to date with XP patches, it won't even be 300mb.
>
> 5. Does it really take two hours?

It shouldn't. 20-30 minutes seems to be the norm. Again, it depends on
how much of SP2 you already have. (Many of the patches in SP2 were made
available between the release of SP1 and the release of SP2 as a whole.

> 6. My XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and do
> not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I
> have good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....What is SP2
> giving me that I'm missing?

Probably not much, although there are some patches included that weren't
available individually prior to SP2 release. This is a matter of some
controversy. Take a look at the MS SP2 site and what SP2 includes, and
make your mind up for yourself.
>
> 7. If I am *only* missing the final KB...can someone be concise and
> let me know my benefits? Name five?

Question makes no sense. What is "the final KB"?
>
> 8. I realize we only hear the bad news here. Then again, my stories
> have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh install---twice?).
> (Not to mention that I went in and out of the Activation routine---
> and never needed to re-activate?!)
> What are the top 3 risks and consequenses one faces with SP2?

There is some risk that despite your best efforts to prepare, SP2 will
render your system inoperable. It happened to me. It appears that the
chances of this happening are very small, however. I installed on two
computers, a laptop and a desktop, both *very* well prepared, and the
install went south on the desktop, but there are no issues to date with
the laptop. My advice is to have a viable disk image before you install
SP2.


> There ya go, buddy. Questions that dependon on one's point of
> view--but question. I'm here to *not* get the standard company line.
> Unless one beieves the the Man is never wrong...which would require a
> leap of faith.

Personally, I've decided not to install on the desktop system and leave
well enough alone on the laptop. Preparation is important, but there is
still a chance that something bad will happen. If you're prepared for
that, then recovery shouldn't be more than an annoyance, and God knows
we've come to be used to that with XP.
October 10, 2004 11:23:15 PM

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

On 10/10/2004 10:13 AM, Phil McCracken wrote:

> Michael wrote:

>> 1. I dual boot w. W2k. One person issued a not to subtle threat to the
>> effect: I can't wait til you try to install SP2? Why would W2k enter
>> into the equation? (it has SP4)
>
>
> SP2 is for XP, it's a separate issue. 2k doesn't enter into the
> equation. Also, that sounds like a warning, not a threat.

First off, Phil, whatever you're taking? Keep it up---increase the
dosage, I'm actually sensing cooperation.

No, I saw not issue with dual (triple actually) booting. But is was
brought up. If not a threat, why should it even serve as a warning?
Warning against what as concerns SP2? Is W2k any part of the equation in
an XP Service Pack? I'm stumped. Does SP2 care about another OS?


>> 2. I wrote back that I'd booted W2k with Dos, NT, 95 9, and SE---no
>> prob--Was that an empty threat? (My setup has a DOS partition, XP,
>> and W2k follows.)


> Makes no sense. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to have
> multiple operating systems on their own partitions.

Good! I was only repeating and seeking clarification on something that
seemed unrelated. Glad for you to confirm my skepticism.


>> 3.Is it a standard SP install where one can designate a partition to
>> "store" the setup?
>
>
> Is *what* "a standard SP install"? To store *what* setup? If you have
> XP on its own partition, you can install the service pack and then
> uninstall it if you choose, assuming you follow the instructions the
> install program gives you. If you've downloaded the full "network" SP2
> package (also good for individual computers) you can store it where ever
> you want.

I have the disk (I thought I mentioned it arrive days after I
applied--they said several weeks---I'd suggest go the disk route as it's
free and well, we know the advantages) Anyway, when I installed SP4 on
W2k it gave me the choice of "storing" (not sure of the term) the
install. I recall it not being the back-up as it wouldn't proceed
without the necessary space for that.

One thing I didn't like, SP4 gave me a dllcache folder---a hundred meg.
I don't know why...either replace dll's or not. Why have a duplicat
folder taking up space---put them where they belong and get rid of the
old one's. My concern is that SP2 would give me a bunch of stuff (or
retain is the better word) I no longer need. I wish the SPs would do a
better job of cleaning up after they leave. One doesn't know what is
needed or what is not. 100 meg dllcache...don't they belong somewhere
else---System32 folder...So, seeing the space necessay for SP2, I'm
thinking, how much will it leave behind that I won't need?


>> 4. Who is so much space necessary for SP install (900 meg) if the whole
>> package is under 300 meg?

>Because of temporary files. The final install won't be that big. In
> fact, if you're up to date with XP patches, it won't even be 300mb.

So, a good part of the system is backed up...fine. That's about three
times the amount SP4 required and I stopped at SP1---I needed SP4 for
IE6---that's what the CD said when I went to install IE6...


>> 5. Does it really take two hours?
>
>
> It shouldn't. 20-30 minutes seems to be the norm. Again, it depends on
> how much of SP2 you already have. (Many of the patches in SP2 were made
> available between the release of SP1 and the release of SP2 as a whole.

Well, I'm told to read the documentation, and it says 2 hours. Damned if
I do, damned if I don't. Yes, with my XP build being late August, I
already have a lot.


>> 6. My XP is very current---I have the new Media Player and do
>> not use IE6, OE and my firewall is better than the MS version---I
>> have good spam blocking, anti-popup, antispy, AV....What is SP2
>> giving me that I'm missing?


> Probably not much, although there are some patches included that weren't
> available individually prior to SP2 release. This is a matter of some
> controversy. Take a look at the MS SP2 site and what SP2 includes, and
> make your mind up for yourself.

I did look at the site. I mentioned what I have in the way of security.
Thus my question. The cryptic term "improved performance" is
attractive---if I knew how, why and if my "late" build is already
"improved". The site is either vague or overly (maybe not) cautious.
Forget the readme. I realy don't know what folks do who are unaware of
USENET. And contrary to what you obviously believe, I've been around.
Jeeze, some of the people I run into...I really don't know how their
machines function. Well, of course some barely do...


>> 7. If I am *only* missing the final KB...can someone be concise and
>> let me know my benefits? Name five?

I ran Belarc Advisor, it is a great picture of one's system. If you
don't know about it, check it out. It goes into great detail. Anyway,
it says I have SP1---Then, under "SP2" it show a list of hotfixes, etc.
Only one, a KB is missing. I figured I was most of the way there.
(Again, considering my third party security measures and the new Media
Player...)


> Question makes no sense. What is "the final KB"?

As I said, it's the only item missing on a list of "SP2" items as shown
by Belarc. I said final as it is the last and only item on the list

>> 8. I realize we only hear the bad news here. Then again, my stories
>> have not been explained (XP repair gave me a fresh install---twice?).
>> (Not to mention that I went in and out of the Activation routine---
>> and never needed to re-activate?!)
>> What are the top 3 risks and consequenses one faces with SP2?
>
>
> There is some risk that despite your best efforts to prepare, SP2 will
> render your system inoperable. It happened to me. It appears that the
> chances of this happening are very small, however. I installed on two
> computers, a laptop and a desktop, both *very* well prepared, and the
> install went south on the desktop, but there are no issues to date with
> the laptop. My advice is to have a viable disk image before you install
> SP2.

No, it's clear as mud. Some say "don't touch it with a ten foot pole"
and yesterday "Colin?" gave me the sense to slap it in, no sweat, it is
the Holy Grail.

Image the entire disk or only the XP partition? Is my 40 gig drive at risk?


>> There ya go, buddy. Questions that dependon on one's point of
>> view--but question. I'm here to *not* get the standard company line.
>> Unless one beieves the the Man is never wrong...which would require a
>> leap of faith.
>
>
> Personally, I've decided not to install on the desktop system and leave
> well enough alone on the laptop. Preparation is important, but there is
> still a chance that something bad will happen. If you're prepared for
> that, then recovery shouldn't be more than an annoyance, and God knows
> we've come to be used to that with XP.
>

No, life is not certain. I'm less concerned about an instant failure--I
simply re-install. I don't like hearing about lingering problems. Long
after SP2 seemed to be a success, I hear of a problem and the answere
is, well, you know. I can put up with a day or two of hell, I don't
want to suffer for the life of the OS. Hell, it's a month old, running
well and I really don't need to throw sand in the gears.

Even you, quite loyal isn't secure enough to try it on your desktop. I
don't consider that a vote of confidence or a strong reference. If you
don't "believe"...one wonder what you know that I don't? (yes, that's a
question)

Anyway, Phil...thanks for being mostly nice. I did have some odd
problems and I don't believe they could be laid at my feet. I followed
instructions and my first three experiences with XP didn't result in the
outcome MS predicted.

So, I really don't like being mean any more than I like being insulteed.
But I was already in a corner and not in the mood to be told what was
happening wasn't supposed to happen. I knew that...I wondered why.

And, I haven't booted to W2k in over a week. While it's working XP is
great. My problem occurred when a simple fix force me to start afreash,
twice. I won't be going into a "repair" with any confidence til I see
that it doesn't have me starting from scratch. Phil, it really did. I
wouldn't think of making that up. Yeah, and it happened twice in two
weeks. Phil, if you were me, you'd be a bit nervous going into a repair.



Lead, follow or get of of the way.

I'll help you if I can.

If you don't have a solution? I don't want to hear from you.
!