Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New XP upgrade SR2

Tags:
  • Dell
  • Windows XP
  • Computers
Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
September 6, 2004 5:17:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Has anyone tried it?

I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
experiences?

More about : upgrade sr2

Anonymous
September 6, 2004 5:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
>Has anyone tried it?

>I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
>experiences?

You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
for a thousand or more postings a day.

Proponents of Microsoft claim that it is just fine, that all the
problems can be attributed "viruses or spyware or customers are
just too stupid." Maybe viruses or spyware were responsible for
some of the problems, but I haven't seen postings REALLY confirming
this. If this were the case then I cannot understand why Microsoft
didn't 1: run a virus/spyware scan, 2: run a registry validation,
3: do sfc (system file check), 4: kill any running processes that
weren't essential for the installation, 5: do a chkdsk, 6: quarantine
any software in their list that they already knew were going to
cause problems 7: run one of the "scan and repair conflicts and
problems on your pc" programs and THEN do the install. This just
isn't rocket science.

If, as some claim, this would have eliminated the vast majority of
problems then I cannot understand why they would not have done this,
if for no other reason than to eliminate the potential public
relations image damage that they desperately need to avoid at this
point, ignoring their own support cost, the support cost to the
other vendors and completely ignoring the cost to the users who
have to try to figure out how to recover from failure.

There are far too many people taking an extreme position based on
their experience with one machine, or at most a tiny number.

There appear to be a handful of specific problems that really do
exist. One version of the Intel processor causes trouble, that can
be sorted out if you know what to do. Some of the bad software
items on the list do appear to cause problems, but some folks find
they don't. It seems that they have yanked around the interface
for drivers and a variety of folks find that some hardware and
software won't work afterwards. Reinstalling the hardware or
software or hoping the vendor has or will provide new drivers may
get around this. There is an ongoing string of folks who find
Windows Explorer fails in some way, that one got me and I still
haven't found any way to fix that. Some folks find it just crashes,
more find it crashes if you click on certain items, mine just refuses
all mouse clicks. Some of the low level hardware guys found that
the drivers for the chipsets "just get lost" in a modest percentage
of the cases, "nobody knows why and they wouldn't want to be the
ones to have to figure that one out."

If you have a problem with the install it is supposed to be the
case that you can back out of this, but some have claimed that they
could not get this to work. If you have a problem you can escalate
this to Microsoft, support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2 and give them
all the details you can about what you have seen. There is no
guarantee their analysis will be correct or even that their directions
won't make things worse, but it might work out. In my case they
concluded "some files must be corrupted, repair windows back to
original install state and then reinstall SP2 twice while in safe
mode." Before I did that someone discovered that for some folks
with Windows Explorer problems that if you create a new user and
switch over to that user then that user doesn't have the problem.
WHen that worked for me I sent Microsoft mail saying that this made
it seem a little less likely that "some files must be corrupted"
and asked if they were still sure I needed to blow windows away.
They haven't answered that in a number of days now, but I can imagine
the hell on earth it might be inside there now.

It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.

Nobody appears to know the actual percentage of people who have
problems on install. I'd love to see a good random sample of 10,000
people called who installed this and how many had problems. I'd
guess Microsoft has some idea by now but they aren't talking.

I have not noticed a disproportionate number of other Dell customers
reporting problems. Based on scanning thousands and thousands of
postings I don't think it would be any worse or any better than any
other brand, but most folks don't report brand info with problems.

As one person put it: "Just because you have heard there are car
accidents, does that mean you aren't going to drive? Do the upgrade."
And I replied "Good analogy, now, if you knew that somewhere between
0% and 10% of all the drivers in the country were going to get into
an accident the same day they did the upgrade, or risk falling
victim to a potential Microsoft bug when maybe exploited by some
net vandal maybe some day in the future, would you go driving today
or not?"

Personally I think failure rates like that are simply inexcusible
but I came from a "6 sigma" environment and have never understood
why customers accept the number of failures with pc's they do.

I waited a week or two after it was initially available, watched
to see if there was a firestorm of problems, perhaps underestimated
the number of problems a bit, and then tried this on one machine
that I could accept the loss on if it killed it. I am still hoping
that Microsoft will come through and deliver a fix for the Windows
Explorer problem. Other than that there may be a host of other
problems with the machine that I just haven't exercised yet. But
I will wait till the end of the month or so, and try to schedule a
block of time when I can deal with any potential disaster, before
I try upgrading the others that absolutely positively have to be
working every morning.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 5:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?
>
>

Only problem with SP2 I have had is that if a user remains signed on and
then becomes inactive long enough for the screen saver to activate, it's
very hard to get back to the logon screen through the screen saver. It
takes a rapid repeating ctrl-alt-del sequence to finally get there. I'll
look into when I get some time. Anyone knows what the potential cause is,
I would be grateful for your input.

I did have a problem with having to specifically launch attachments from a
Usenet binaries (pictures) group. Finally figured out which setting it
was that I needed to change back. For those that might be googling for
that answer (it did get asked in that binary group)

In OE...tools...options...read...uncheck "read all messages in plain text"
Related resources
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 6:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?
>
I downloaded the full version from microsoft at its release (268 mb)and
installed on my Dimension 2400. Most of the changes as stated by others in
this group are under the hood. The biggest noticable change for me was the
pop up blocker in IE and the firewall changes. It took minimal tweaking on
my part to make a few apps work, and it did not recognise my a/v software
(Norton) So I made the choice to monitor my own av.
I found it interesting that Microsoft has chosen to blur the lines between
xp pro and xp home editions. The new splash screen simply says xp.
All in all I,ve had no problems with sp2 on my machine. I feel a bit more
secure having run it.
Because I have to have the latest and greatest I went back and downloaded
WMP 10 which is also cool
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 6:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I installed it from Windows Update on 6 Dell's I have here at home. Five
desktops (2 8300's, 1 4100, 1 T series, and 1 4550) and one notebook. Not a
problem with any of them.

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?
>
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 6:27:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Darkstar,
Check with Symantec, about SP2 update. Check the "Automated Solutions" tab:
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/asa.html

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Darkstar" <richmc3@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:Lc__c.7555$Vl5.2525@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?
>
I downloaded the full version from microsoft at its release (268 mb)and
installed on my Dimension 2400. Most of the changes as stated by others in
this group are under the hood. The biggest noticable change for me was the
pop up blocker in IE and the firewall changes. It took minimal tweaking on
my part to make a few apps work, and it did not recognise my a/v software
(Norton) So I made the choice to monitor my own av.
I found it interesting that Microsoft has chosen to blur the lines between
xp pro and xp home editions. The new splash screen simply says xp.
All in all I,ve had no problems with sp2 on my machine. I feel a bit more
secure having run it.
Because I have to have the latest and greatest I went back and downloaded
WMP 10 which is also cool
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:57:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I have read that much on the subject, for and against, that I decided to try
for myself.

So as not to trash the system I created a fresh partition and am dual
booting XP SP1 and XP SP2.

I downloaded the big Service Pack (all 268 meg) and slipstreamed into my XP
Pro CD. Thus having a fresh instal.

I am slowly installing my 3rd party software and as of yet have found no
problems, which a simple manufacturers' patch (for SP2), hasn't cured.

I have an Inspiron 9100 and it is working just fine (touch wood......)

Regards

Andy C


"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:5KadnTTtPq1rGKHcRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com...
> "Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
> >Has anyone tried it?
>
> >I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> >experiences?
>
> You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
> look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
> for a thousand or more postings a day.
>
> Proponents of Microsoft claim that it is just fine, that all the
> problems can be attributed "viruses or spyware or customers are
> just too stupid." Maybe viruses or spyware were responsible for
> some of the problems, but I haven't seen postings REALLY confirming
> this. If this were the case then I cannot understand why Microsoft
> didn't 1: run a virus/spyware scan, 2: run a registry validation,
> 3: do sfc (system file check), 4: kill any running processes that
> weren't essential for the installation, 5: do a chkdsk, 6: quarantine
> any software in their list that they already knew were going to
> cause problems 7: run one of the "scan and repair conflicts and
> problems on your pc" programs and THEN do the install. This just
> isn't rocket science.
>
> If, as some claim, this would have eliminated the vast majority of
> problems then I cannot understand why they would not have done this,
> if for no other reason than to eliminate the potential public
> relations image damage that they desperately need to avoid at this
> point, ignoring their own support cost, the support cost to the
> other vendors and completely ignoring the cost to the users who
> have to try to figure out how to recover from failure.
>
> There are far too many people taking an extreme position based on
> their experience with one machine, or at most a tiny number.
>
> There appear to be a handful of specific problems that really do
> exist. One version of the Intel processor causes trouble, that can
> be sorted out if you know what to do. Some of the bad software
> items on the list do appear to cause problems, but some folks find
> they don't. It seems that they have yanked around the interface
> for drivers and a variety of folks find that some hardware and
> software won't work afterwards. Reinstalling the hardware or
> software or hoping the vendor has or will provide new drivers may
> get around this. There is an ongoing string of folks who find
> Windows Explorer fails in some way, that one got me and I still
> haven't found any way to fix that. Some folks find it just crashes,
> more find it crashes if you click on certain items, mine just refuses
> all mouse clicks. Some of the low level hardware guys found that
> the drivers for the chipsets "just get lost" in a modest percentage
> of the cases, "nobody knows why and they wouldn't want to be the
> ones to have to figure that one out."
>
> If you have a problem with the install it is supposed to be the
> case that you can back out of this, but some have claimed that they
> could not get this to work. If you have a problem you can escalate
> this to Microsoft, support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2 and give them
> all the details you can about what you have seen. There is no
> guarantee their analysis will be correct or even that their directions
> won't make things worse, but it might work out. In my case they
> concluded "some files must be corrupted, repair windows back to
> original install state and then reinstall SP2 twice while in safe
> mode." Before I did that someone discovered that for some folks
> with Windows Explorer problems that if you create a new user and
> switch over to that user then that user doesn't have the problem.
> WHen that worked for me I sent Microsoft mail saying that this made
> it seem a little less likely that "some files must be corrupted"
> and asked if they were still sure I needed to blow windows away.
> They haven't answered that in a number of days now, but I can imagine
> the hell on earth it might be inside there now.
>
> It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
> hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
> ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.
>
> Nobody appears to know the actual percentage of people who have
> problems on install. I'd love to see a good random sample of 10,000
> people called who installed this and how many had problems. I'd
> guess Microsoft has some idea by now but they aren't talking.
>
> I have not noticed a disproportionate number of other Dell customers
> reporting problems. Based on scanning thousands and thousands of
> postings I don't think it would be any worse or any better than any
> other brand, but most folks don't report brand info with problems.
>
> As one person put it: "Just because you have heard there are car
> accidents, does that mean you aren't going to drive? Do the upgrade."
> And I replied "Good analogy, now, if you knew that somewhere between
> 0% and 10% of all the drivers in the country were going to get into
> an accident the same day they did the upgrade, or risk falling
> victim to a potential Microsoft bug when maybe exploited by some
> net vandal maybe some day in the future, would you go driving today
> or not?"
>
> Personally I think failure rates like that are simply inexcusible
> but I came from a "6 sigma" environment and have never understood
> why customers accept the number of failures with pc's they do.
>
> I waited a week or two after it was initially available, watched
> to see if there was a firestorm of problems, perhaps underestimated
> the number of problems a bit, and then tried this on one machine
> that I could accept the loss on if it killed it. I am still hoping
> that Microsoft will come through and deliver a fix for the Windows
> Explorer problem. Other than that there may be a host of other
> problems with the machine that I just haven't exercised yet. But
> I will wait till the end of the month or so, and try to schedule a
> block of time when I can deal with any potential disaster, before
> I try upgrading the others that absolutely positively have to be
> working every morning.
September 6, 2004 11:02:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>downloaded WMP 10 which is also cool

What's that?


>
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 11:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Windows Media Player version 10

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chic91$mp3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >downloaded WMP 10 which is also cool
>
> What's that?
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 12:51:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Thank you RRR I did just that. I use live update and intelligent updater to
keep my definitions up to date. I'd truly rather handle it myself.
Because my original program for NAV came from dell. They show it as a
pre-release or beta version so no updates are available. Here is the message
that I recieved from Symantec in its entirety
"You have a version of Norton AntiVirus 2003 that is pre-released or beta.

The Automated Support Assistant has determined that this machine is running
a pre-released or beta version of Norton AntiVirus 2003. This version of the
software is not supported by Symantec and cannot be updated.Please contact
the vendor that you purchased the software from to request a released copy
of Norton AntiVirus 2003. "
details on our release version are available at the Symantec Products and
Services Page

Other than this I've had no issues with sp2.

Thanks again for your support

"RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
news:k_CdnZaQGbsXNqHcRVn-sw@comcast.com...
Darkstar,
Check with Symantec, about SP2 update. Check the "Automated Solutions" tab:
http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/sp2/asa.html

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Darkstar" <richmc3@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Lc__c.7555$Vl5.2525@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?
>
I downloaded the full version from microsoft at its release (268 mb)and
installed on my Dimension 2400. Most of the changes as stated by others in
this group are under the hood. The biggest noticable change for me was the
pop up blocker in IE and the firewall changes. It took minimal tweaking on
my part to make a few apps work, and it did not recognise my a/v software
(Norton) So I made the choice to monitor my own av.
I found it interesting that Microsoft has chosen to blur the lines between
xp pro and xp home editions. The new splash screen simply says xp.
All in all I,ve had no problems with sp2 on my machine. I feel a bit more
secure having run it.
Because I have to have the latest and greatest I went back and downloaded
WMP 10 which is also cool
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:32:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Has anyone tried it?

Sure, it works just fine for the great majority of folks.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:35:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

All the arcana you describe is fine BUT the fact remains that the great
majority of folks find that SP2 installs and runs just fine with no
problems.

"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:5KadnTTtPq1rGKHcRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com...
> "Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
> >Has anyone tried it?
>
> >I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> >experiences?
>
> You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
> look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
> for a thousand or more postings a day.
>
> Proponents of Microsoft claim that it is just fine, that all the
> problems can be attributed "viruses or spyware or customers are
> just too stupid." Maybe viruses or spyware were responsible for
> some of the problems, but I haven't seen postings REALLY confirming
> this. If this were the case then I cannot understand why Microsoft
> didn't 1: run a virus/spyware scan, 2: run a registry validation,
> 3: do sfc (system file check), 4: kill any running processes that
> weren't essential for the installation, 5: do a chkdsk, 6: quarantine
> any software in their list that they already knew were going to
> cause problems 7: run one of the "scan and repair conflicts and
> problems on your pc" programs and THEN do the install. This just
> isn't rocket science.
>
> If, as some claim, this would have eliminated the vast majority of
> problems then I cannot understand why they would not have done this,
> if for no other reason than to eliminate the potential public
> relations image damage that they desperately need to avoid at this
> point, ignoring their own support cost, the support cost to the
> other vendors and completely ignoring the cost to the users who
> have to try to figure out how to recover from failure.
>
> There are far too many people taking an extreme position based on
> their experience with one machine, or at most a tiny number.
>
> There appear to be a handful of specific problems that really do
> exist. One version of the Intel processor causes trouble, that can
> be sorted out if you know what to do. Some of the bad software
> items on the list do appear to cause problems, but some folks find
> they don't. It seems that they have yanked around the interface
> for drivers and a variety of folks find that some hardware and
> software won't work afterwards. Reinstalling the hardware or
> software or hoping the vendor has or will provide new drivers may
> get around this. There is an ongoing string of folks who find
> Windows Explorer fails in some way, that one got me and I still
> haven't found any way to fix that. Some folks find it just crashes,
> more find it crashes if you click on certain items, mine just refuses
> all mouse clicks. Some of the low level hardware guys found that
> the drivers for the chipsets "just get lost" in a modest percentage
> of the cases, "nobody knows why and they wouldn't want to be the
> ones to have to figure that one out."
>
> If you have a problem with the install it is supposed to be the
> case that you can back out of this, but some have claimed that they
> could not get this to work. If you have a problem you can escalate
> this to Microsoft, support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2 and give them
> all the details you can about what you have seen. There is no
> guarantee their analysis will be correct or even that their directions
> won't make things worse, but it might work out. In my case they
> concluded "some files must be corrupted, repair windows back to
> original install state and then reinstall SP2 twice while in safe
> mode." Before I did that someone discovered that for some folks
> with Windows Explorer problems that if you create a new user and
> switch over to that user then that user doesn't have the problem.
> WHen that worked for me I sent Microsoft mail saying that this made
> it seem a little less likely that "some files must be corrupted"
> and asked if they were still sure I needed to blow windows away.
> They haven't answered that in a number of days now, but I can imagine
> the hell on earth it might be inside there now.
>
> It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
> hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
> ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.
>
> Nobody appears to know the actual percentage of people who have
> problems on install. I'd love to see a good random sample of 10,000
> people called who installed this and how many had problems. I'd
> guess Microsoft has some idea by now but they aren't talking.
>
> I have not noticed a disproportionate number of other Dell customers
> reporting problems. Based on scanning thousands and thousands of
> postings I don't think it would be any worse or any better than any
> other brand, but most folks don't report brand info with problems.
>
> As one person put it: "Just because you have heard there are car
> accidents, does that mean you aren't going to drive? Do the upgrade."
> And I replied "Good analogy, now, if you knew that somewhere between
> 0% and 10% of all the drivers in the country were going to get into
> an accident the same day they did the upgrade, or risk falling
> victim to a potential Microsoft bug when maybe exploited by some
> net vandal maybe some day in the future, would you go driving today
> or not?"
>
> Personally I think failure rates like that are simply inexcusible
> but I came from a "6 sigma" environment and have never understood
> why customers accept the number of failures with pc's they do.
>
> I waited a week or two after it was initially available, watched
> to see if there was a firestorm of problems, perhaps underestimated
> the number of problems a bit, and then tried this on one machine
> that I could accept the loss on if it killed it. I am still hoping
> that Microsoft will come through and deliver a fix for the Windows
> Explorer problem. Other than that there may be a host of other
> problems with the machine that I just haven't exercised yet. But
> I will wait till the end of the month or so, and try to schedule a
> block of time when I can deal with any potential disaster, before
> I try upgrading the others that absolutely positively have to be
> working every morning.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:35:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> writes:
>All the arcana you describe is fine BUT the fact remains that the great
>majority of folks find that SP2 installs and runs just fine with no
>problems.

The fact remains that nobody knows what the real problem rate is.

I spent a decade doing 6-sigma quality software. That equates to
you and two dozen of your friends using our product full time for
fifty years and still having a 90% chance that not a one of you
would have ever seen a bug, no matter how small. With say 50 million
pc's using SP2, is having five million people deal with a problem
doing the upgrade acceptable? Most folks would claim 90% would be
a great majority. That just gave you five million people who have
to pay to dig themselves out of this. How about one million? Or
20 thousand? That's getting closer to 6-sigma.

>"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
>news:5KadnTTtPq1rGKHcRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com...
>> "Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
>> >Has anyone tried it?
>>
>> >I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
>> >experiences?
>>
>> You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
>> look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
>> for a thousand or more postings a day.
>>
>> Proponents of Microsoft claim that it is just fine, that all the
>> problems can be attributed "viruses or spyware or customers are
>> just too stupid." Maybe viruses or spyware were responsible for
>> some of the problems, but I haven't seen postings REALLY confirming
>> this. If this were the case then I cannot understand why Microsoft
>> didn't 1: run a virus/spyware scan, 2: run a registry validation,
>> 3: do sfc (system file check), 4: kill any running processes that
>> weren't essential for the installation, 5: do a chkdsk, 6: quarantine
>> any software in their list that they already knew were going to
>> cause problems 7: run one of the "scan and repair conflicts and
>> problems on your pc" programs and THEN do the install. This just
>> isn't rocket science.
>>
>> If, as some claim, this would have eliminated the vast majority of
>> problems then I cannot understand why they would not have done this,
>> if for no other reason than to eliminate the potential public
>> relations image damage that they desperately need to avoid at this
>> point, ignoring their own support cost, the support cost to the
>> other vendors and completely ignoring the cost to the users who
>> have to try to figure out how to recover from failure.
>>
>> There are far too many people taking an extreme position based on
>> their experience with one machine, or at most a tiny number.
>>
>> There appear to be a handful of specific problems that really do
>> exist. One version of the Intel processor causes trouble, that can
>> be sorted out if you know what to do. Some of the bad software
>> items on the list do appear to cause problems, but some folks find
>> they don't. It seems that they have yanked around the interface
>> for drivers and a variety of folks find that some hardware and
>> software won't work afterwards. Reinstalling the hardware or
>> software or hoping the vendor has or will provide new drivers may
>> get around this. There is an ongoing string of folks who find
>> Windows Explorer fails in some way, that one got me and I still
>> haven't found any way to fix that. Some folks find it just crashes,
>> more find it crashes if you click on certain items, mine just refuses
>> all mouse clicks. Some of the low level hardware guys found that
>> the drivers for the chipsets "just get lost" in a modest percentage
>> of the cases, "nobody knows why and they wouldn't want to be the
>> ones to have to figure that one out."
>>
>> If you have a problem with the install it is supposed to be the
>> case that you can back out of this, but some have claimed that they
>> could not get this to work. If you have a problem you can escalate
>> this to Microsoft, support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2 and give them
>> all the details you can about what you have seen. There is no
>> guarantee their analysis will be correct or even that their directions
>> won't make things worse, but it might work out. In my case they
>> concluded "some files must be corrupted, repair windows back to
>> original install state and then reinstall SP2 twice while in safe
>> mode." Before I did that someone discovered that for some folks
>> with Windows Explorer problems that if you create a new user and
>> switch over to that user then that user doesn't have the problem.
>> WHen that worked for me I sent Microsoft mail saying that this made
>> it seem a little less likely that "some files must be corrupted"
>> and asked if they were still sure I needed to blow windows away.
>> They haven't answered that in a number of days now, but I can imagine
>> the hell on earth it might be inside there now.
>>
>> It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
>> hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
>> ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.
>>
>> Nobody appears to know the actual percentage of people who have
>> problems on install. I'd love to see a good random sample of 10,000
>> people called who installed this and how many had problems. I'd
>> guess Microsoft has some idea by now but they aren't talking.
>>
>> I have not noticed a disproportionate number of other Dell customers
>> reporting problems. Based on scanning thousands and thousands of
>> postings I don't think it would be any worse or any better than any
>> other brand, but most folks don't report brand info with problems.
>>
>> As one person put it: "Just because you have heard there are car
>> accidents, does that mean you aren't going to drive? Do the upgrade."
>> And I replied "Good analogy, now, if you knew that somewhere between
>> 0% and 10% of all the drivers in the country were going to get into
>> an accident the same day they did the upgrade, or risk falling
>> victim to a potential Microsoft bug when maybe exploited by some
>> net vandal maybe some day in the future, would you go driving today
>> or not?"
>>
>> Personally I think failure rates like that are simply inexcusible
>> but I came from a "6 sigma" environment and have never understood
>> why customers accept the number of failures with pc's they do.
>>
>> I waited a week or two after it was initially available, watched
>> to see if there was a firestorm of problems, perhaps underestimated
>> the number of problems a bit, and then tried this on one machine
>> that I could accept the loss on if it killed it. I am still hoping
>> that Microsoft will come through and deliver a fix for the Windows
>> Explorer problem. Other than that there may be a host of other
>> problems with the machine that I just haven't exercised yet. But
>> I will wait till the end of the month or so, and try to schedule a
>> block of time when I can deal with any potential disaster, before
>> I try upgrading the others that absolutely positively have to be
>> working every morning.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:37:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"joe_tide" <joetide@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:10jpahebg0b2hd0@corp.supernews.com...
> I installed it from Windows Update on 6 Dell's I have here at home. Five
> desktops (2 8300's, 1 4100, 1 T series, and 1 4550) and one notebook. Not
a
> problem with any of them.

A typical RESULT.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:38:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:chic91$mp3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >downloaded WMP 10 which is also cool
>
> What's that?

A fancy dancy new Windows Media Player.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 5:15:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:0I6dnVHor4sleaHcRVn-tA@scnresearch.com...
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> writes:
> >All the arcana you describe is fine BUT the fact remains that the great
> >majority of folks find that SP2 installs and runs just fine with no
> >problems.
>
> The fact remains that nobody knows what the real problem rate is.

95...99....99.5...guess not.

> I spent a decade doing 6-sigma quality software. That equates to
> you and two dozen of your friends using our product full time for
> fifty years and still having a 90% chance that not a one of you
> would have ever seen a bug, no matter how small. With say 50 million
> pc's using SP2, is having five million people deal with a problem
> doing the upgrade acceptable? Most folks would claim 90% would be
> a great majority. That just gave you five million people who have
> to pay to dig themselves out of this. How about one million? Or
> 20 thousand? That's getting closer to 6-sigma.

And there was some parsable content in that relevant to the issue at hand?
I didn't think so. SP2 works just fine for the great majority of folks and
all should install it.
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 1:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

dont@agora.rdrop.com (Don Taylor) wrote in message news:<5KadnTTtPq1rGKHcRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com>...
> "Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
> >Has anyone tried it?
>
> >I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> >experiences?
>
> You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
> look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
> for a thousand or more postings a day.
>
> Proponents of Microsoft claim that it is just fine, that all the
> problems can be attributed "viruses or spyware or customers are
> just too stupid." Maybe viruses or spyware were responsible for
> some of the problems, but I haven't seen postings REALLY confirming
> this. If this were the case then I cannot understand why Microsoft
> didn't 1: run a virus/spyware scan, 2: run a registry validation,
> 3: do sfc (system file check), 4: kill any running processes that
> weren't essential for the installation, 5: do a chkdsk, 6: quarantine
> any software in their list that they already knew were going to
> cause problems 7: run one of the "scan and repair conflicts and
> problems on your pc" programs and THEN do the install. This just
> isn't rocket science.
>
> If, as some claim, this would have eliminated the vast majority of
> problems then I cannot understand why they would not have done this,
> if for no other reason than to eliminate the potential public
> relations image damage that they desperately need to avoid at this
> point, ignoring their own support cost, the support cost to the
> other vendors and completely ignoring the cost to the users who
> have to try to figure out how to recover from failure.
>
> There are far too many people taking an extreme position based on
> their experience with one machine, or at most a tiny number.
>
> There appear to be a handful of specific problems that really do
> exist. One version of the Intel processor causes trouble, that can
> be sorted out if you know what to do. Some of the bad software
> items on the list do appear to cause problems, but some folks find
> they don't. It seems that they have yanked around the interface
> for drivers and a variety of folks find that some hardware and
> software won't work afterwards. Reinstalling the hardware or
> software or hoping the vendor has or will provide new drivers may
> get around this. There is an ongoing string of folks who find
> Windows Explorer fails in some way, that one got me and I still
> haven't found any way to fix that. Some folks find it just crashes,
> more find it crashes if you click on certain items, mine just refuses
> all mouse clicks. Some of the low level hardware guys found that
> the drivers for the chipsets "just get lost" in a modest percentage
> of the cases, "nobody knows why and they wouldn't want to be the
> ones to have to figure that one out."

I've had problems with sorting (sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't).

I've had problems with the client area of the right pane (Folder view)
not displaying entries properly (detail view).

>
> If you have a problem with the install it is supposed to be the
> case that you can back out of this, but some have claimed that they
> could not get this to work. If you have a problem you can escalate
> this to Microsoft, support.microsoft.com/windowsxpsp2 and give them
> all the details you can about what you have seen. There is no
> guarantee their analysis will be correct or even that their directions
> won't make things worse, but it might work out. In my case they
> concluded "some files must be corrupted, repair windows back to
> original install state and then reinstall SP2 twice while in safe
> mode." Before I did that someone discovered that for some folks
> with Windows Explorer problems that if you create a new user and
> switch over to that user then that user doesn't have the problem.
> WHen that worked for me I sent Microsoft mail saying that this made
> it seem a little less likely that "some files must be corrupted"
> and asked if they were still sure I needed to blow windows away.
> They haven't answered that in a number of days now, but I can imagine
> the hell on earth it might be inside there now.
>
> It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
> hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
> ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.
>

Now why would this be? Someone please explain this to me.


> Nobody appears to know the actual percentage of people who have
> problems on install. I'd love to see a good random sample of 10,000
> people called who installed this and how many had problems. I'd
> guess Microsoft has some idea by now but they aren't talking.
>
> I have not noticed a disproportionate number of other Dell customers
> reporting problems. Based on scanning thousands and thousands of
> postings I don't think it would be any worse or any better than any
> other brand, but most folks don't report brand info with problems.
>
> As one person put it: "Just because you have heard there are car
> accidents, does that mean you aren't going to drive? Do the upgrade."
> And I replied "Good analogy, now, if you knew that somewhere between
> 0% and 10% of all the drivers in the country were going to get into
> an accident the same day they did the upgrade, or risk falling
> victim to a potential Microsoft bug when maybe exploited by some
> net vandal maybe some day in the future, would you go driving today
> or not?"
>
> Personally I think failure rates like that are simply inexcusible
> but I came from a "6 sigma" environment and have never understood
> why customers accept the number of failures with pc's they do.

The current PC software market is one of the only markets where the
consumer (customer) serves and accommodates the producer. In any other
market, producers serve consumers. Would any of us enter a restaurant,
seat the waiter, serve the waiter, pay for the waiter's meal, and then
leave the restaurant? Would any of us purchase a five-pound wrist
watch all because the sales person is telling us that with enough
dumb-bell curlse it's wearable?


Performance is another quality issue. I see MS turning its entire OS
into a virtual machine. "Managed code" is a synonym for "Java byte
code". On the server, where a server app written in java is up and
running all the time, initial-startup latency is a non issue. On the
desktop, it's a huge issue. I don't want to wait! I've got 1.5GB of
RAM on my desktop. Why should I wait? The clincher is when I sit down
to a P300 box with 64MB of RAM running FreeBSD 5, X and and fvwm 2,
and the system runs pretty fast. By the way, the FBSD, X, fvwm
installation took no longer than the XP installation. In fact, it was
faster.


>
> I waited a week or two after it was initially available, watched
> to see if there was a firestorm of problems, perhaps underestimated
> the number of problems a bit, and then tried this on one machine
> that I could accept the loss on if it killed it. I am still hoping
> that Microsoft will come through and deliver a fix for the Windows
> Explorer problem. Other than that there may be a host of other
> problems with the machine that I just haven't exercised yet. But
> I will wait till the end of the month or so, and try to schedule a
> block of time when I can deal with any potential disaster, before
> I try upgrading the others that absolutely positively have to be
> working every morning.

LB
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 3:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"LB" <lbunet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35e1fa55.0409270831.714cc9fe@posting.google.com...
> dont@agora.rdrop.com (Don Taylor) wrote in message
> news:<5KadnTTtPq1rGKHcRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com>...
>> "Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> writes:
>> >Has anyone tried it?
>>
>> >I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
>> >experiences?
>>
>> You can get some, likely biased, view of the experiences if you
>> look over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. But be prepared
>> for a thousand or more postings a day.
>>

<snip>


>> It does appear the installation blows away your Java, my Sun Java
>> hotspot compiler installation was silently deleted. It does not
>> ask you a single question about what you want or don't want done.
>>
>
> Now why would this be? Someone please explain this to me.
>


With regards to Java, I can only confirm that I've had to re-install the
Java Runtime environment plug-in on the 3 machines post SP2 install. With
regard to the "whys", it may be simply an MS point of contention or
something they consider a 'security' matter.

Have no idea. But runtime plug-in does have to be reinstalled (both XP Home
and Pro).


Stew
Anonymous
September 27, 2004 8:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message news:<chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> Has anyone tried it?
>
> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> experiences?


I ordered the SP2 disc and it only took a week for it to arrive at my pad.
I installed it on my pc XP pro and everything worked fine except it
disabled Zone Alarm. I guess the SP2 firewall is good enough. I also
noticed that there is a pop-up ad blocker, which works pretty good
as far as I can tell. I haven't looked at other stuff that came on the
disc. Bottom line - My PC runs the same as far as I can tell.

Nick
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 8:26:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm. If you do not
have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
perfectly with the Windows Security Center so that if you have Zone
Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.

On 27 Sep 2004 16:28:41 -0700, tq144@msn.com (Nicolas The Great)
wrote:

>"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message news:<chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
>> Has anyone tried it?
>>
>> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
>> experiences?
>
>
> I ordered the SP2 disc and it only took a week for it to arrive at my pad.
> I installed it on my pc XP pro and everything worked fine except it
> disabled Zone Alarm. I guess the SP2 firewall is good enough. I also
> noticed that there is a pop-up ad blocker, which works pretty good
> as far as I can tell. I haven't looked at other stuff that came on the
> disc. Bottom line - My PC runs the same as far as I can tell.
>
> Nick
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:26:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerome M. Katz" <jerrymkatz@NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mv7il0ded7jj6mfr8j2jlnu42gbjv42csj@4ax.com...
> Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.

Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
longer needed.

> If you do not
> have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
> perfectly with the Windows Security Center

But just add more overhead and something else to fiddle with for NO added
important functionality.

> so that if you have Zone
> Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.

Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.

Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.

> On 27 Sep 2004 16:28:41 -0700, tq144@msn.com (Nicolas The Great)
> wrote:
>
> >"Tony" <lkj@lkj.com> wrote in message
news:<chho1j$5pl$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> >> Has anyone tried it?
> >>
> >> I've heard bad things about it..hardly surprising with MS..any good
> >> experiences?
> >
> >
> > I ordered the SP2 disc and it only took a week for it to arrive at my
pad.
> > I installed it on my pc XP pro and everything worked fine except it
> > disabled Zone Alarm. I guess the SP2 firewall is good enough. I also
> > noticed that there is a pop-up ad blocker, which works pretty good
> > as far as I can tell. I haven't looked at other stuff that came on the
> > disc. Bottom line - My PC runs the same as far as I can tell.
> >
> > Nick
>
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.

Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
<snip>
> Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>
> Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:26:56 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
wrote:

>> Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
>
>Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
>longer needed.

Correct me if I'm wrong (not unprecedented) but I thought that the XP
firewall stopped only incoming mischief. Zone Alarm will stop things
on your computer from "phoning home". That was my understanding --
i.e. you still need Zone Alarm even though you have the new, improved
SP2 firewall.
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:26:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
>

<snip>

What Tom said. I've got people doubled-up with the XP Firewall and Sygate
Personal Firewall for this very reason - potentially malicious OUTgoing
activity.


Stew
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 1:40:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message news:<j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
>
> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> <snip>
> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> >
> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
> >


Tom, why is your CPU slowing down? ZA or XPSP2?

Nick
Anonymous
September 28, 2004 7:48:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Nicolas The Great" <tq144@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fe14f4af.0409280840.1e148fef@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:<j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
>> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
>> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
>>
>> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
>> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> <snip>
>> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>> >
>> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>> >
>
>
> Tom, why is your CPU slowing down? ZA or XPSP2?
>
> Nick

Mine isn't. I think you're confusing me with another poster. Don't even
run ZA.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 12:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

tq144@msn.com (Nicolas The Great) writes:

> I ordered the SP2 disc and it only took a week for it to arrive at my pad.
> I installed it on my pc XP pro and everything worked fine except it
> disabled Zone Alarm. I guess the SP2 firewall is good enough. I also
> noticed that there is a pop-up ad blocker, which works pretty good
> as far as I can tell. I haven't looked at other stuff that came on the
> disc. Bottom line - My PC runs the same as far as I can tell.

It would help if you would identify the version of ZA you are running,
what you mean by "disable" and how you determined that it had been
disabled. I'm not disputing your report, but I need more info to know
if it might affect me.

Joe Morris
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:21:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.

Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by MS's
Automatic Updates

> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING

Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus scanner and
spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the general
computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
configured....etc.

Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is to be
AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS. Do
you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?


>use of the internet like ZA.
>
> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> <snip>
> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> >
> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
> >
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:KBk6d.449795$OB3.270981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
>
> Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by MS's
> Automatic Updates
>
>> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING
>
> Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus scanner and
> spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the general
> computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
> configured....etc.
>
> Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is to be
> AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS. Do
> you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?
>
>

<snip>


Judas H, Ron - you duct tape all of your end users to their chairs and throw
away the mouse of each? I think not.

Your recipe may be foolproof in theory - but it is just that. Rainbows,
butterflies, and dandelions abound in this scenario....

I agree that less ( in this case ) is MORE, IF........IF it can be actually
implemented and maintained (see the end user).


Stew
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Outgoing is unneeded?

You don't allow your users to use DVDs, CDs, or Floppies?

If you do, outgoing is needed.

I'd hate to have you support my users.

At least you keep reinforcing your lack of experience.

And make me laugh.
"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:KBk6d.449795$OB3.270981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
>
> Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by MS's
> Automatic Updates
>
>> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING
>
> Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus scanner and
> spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the general
> computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
> configured....etc.
>
> Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is to be
> AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS. Do
> you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?
>
>
>>use of the internet like ZA.
>>
>> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
>> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> <snip>
>> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>> >
>> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>> >
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:23:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Zippy the Pinhead" <the_corporate_hose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p mkil0ldu9lsj10l7250br8r3rs2bnrqst@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:26:56 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
> >
> >Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
> >longer needed.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong (not unprecedented) but I thought that the XP
> firewall stopped only incoming mischief.

And that is ALL that is needed.

> Zone Alarm will stop things
> on your computer from "phoning home".

No, that's what AVG(virus) and Adaware(spyware) do.

> That was my understanding --
> i.e. you still need Zone Alarm even though you have the new, improved
> SP2 firewall.

Lose ZA and use SP2's firewall.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:25:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:N7d6d.57537$as2.28171@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> > Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
> > For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> What Tom said. I've got people doubled-up with the XP Firewall and Sygate
> Personal Firewall for this very reason - potentially malicious OUTgoing
> activity.

No, get proper virus scanning and spyware checking as that handles
outgoing. Doubling up a machine with excess trash is what the whole
industry is trying to AVOID.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:WEk6d.449812$OB3.3353@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:N7d6d.57537$as2.28171@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> > Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to
>> > ZA.
>> > For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
>> >
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> What Tom said. I've got people doubled-up with the XP Firewall and
>> Sygate
>> Personal Firewall for this very reason - potentially malicious OUTgoing
>> activity.
>
> No, get proper virus scanning and spyware checking as that handles
> outgoing. Doubling up a machine with excess trash is what the whole
> industry is trying to AVOID.
>
>


Ah, a minor disagreement. You may be looking at an install base of dozens
of machines when I'm looking at 2 to 5.

Apparently, neither of us are doing a great job as self-propogating malware
is hardly extinct, even in corporate environments.

We should be fired. :) 


Stew
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 1:25:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Nicolas The Great" <tq144@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fe14f4af.0409280840.1e148fef@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:<j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> > Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
> > For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
> >
> > Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
> > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> > >
> > > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
> > >
>
>
> Tom, why is your CPU slowing down? ZA or XPSP2?

The scales are unbalanced.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 4:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mOm6d.61402$as2.35565@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> I agree that less ( in this case ) is MORE, IF........IF it can be
actually
> implemented and maintained (see the end user).

Automatic Updates, a good virus scanner and a good spyware checker.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 5:20:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:MY-dnUk2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Outgoing is unneeded?
>
> You don't allow your users to use DVDs, CDs, or Floppies?
>
> If you do, outgoing is needed.
>
> I'd hate to have you support my users.
>
> At least you keep reinforcing your lack of experience.
>
> And make me laugh.

Clueless newbies always expose themselves. Study up.

> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:KBk6d.449795$OB3.270981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> >> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to
ZA.
> >
> > Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by
MS's
> > Automatic Updates
> >
> >> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING
> >
> > Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus scanner
and
> > spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the
general
> > computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
> > configured....etc.
> >
> > Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is to
be
> > AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS.
Do
> > you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?
> >
> >
> >>use of the internet like ZA.
> >>
> >> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
> >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> >> >
> >> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 5:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Hmm, I owned one of the first 1000 IBM PCs off the assembly line. Worked
every major platform.

Know one heck of a lot more than you do, as you prove with every single
post.

Tom
"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:45o6d.644290$Gx4.26254@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:MY-dnUk2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>> Outgoing is unneeded?
>>
>> You don't allow your users to use DVDs, CDs, or Floppies?
>>
>> If you do, outgoing is needed.
>>
>> I'd hate to have you support my users.
>>
>> At least you keep reinforcing your lack of experience.
>>
>> And make me laugh.
>
> Clueless newbies always expose themselves. Study up.
>
>> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:KBk6d.449795$OB3.270981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >
>> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> > news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> >> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to
> ZA.
>> >
>> > Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by
> MS's
>> > Automatic Updates
>> >
>> >> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING
>> >
>> > Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus scanner
> and
>> > spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the
> general
>> > computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
>> > configured....etc.
>> >
>> > Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is to
> be
>> > AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS.
> Do
>> > you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?
>> >
>> >
>> >>use of the internet like ZA.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
>> >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>> >> >
>> >> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 5:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
news:45o6d.644290$Gx4.26254@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:MY-dnUk2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>> Outgoing is unneeded?
>>
>> You don't allow your users to use DVDs, CDs, or Floppies?
>>
>> If you do, outgoing is needed.
>>
>> I'd hate to have you support my users.
>>
>> At least you keep reinforcing your lack of experience.
>>
>> And make me laugh.
>
> Clueless newbies always expose themselves. Study up.
>

<snip>


"It COULD be, it MIGHT be,.................IT IS!!! THAT BABY'S OUTTA
HERE!"

<plonk/>


Stew
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 5:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:JdOdnamcdtQFiMfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Hmm, I owned one of the first 1000 IBM PCs off the assembly line. Worked
> every major platform.
>
> Know one heck of a lot more than you do, as you prove with every single
> post.
>
> Tom


Tom,

Don't even bother, sir....


Stew
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 6:10:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:JdOdnamcdtQFiMfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Hmm, I owned one of the first 1000 IBM PCs off the assembly line. Worked
> every major platform.
>
> Know one heck of a lot more than you do, as you prove with every single
> post.

Then you started very late. Every heard of Linc tape or MAP/FAP? Go back
to school sonny.

> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> news:45o6d.644290$Gx4.26254@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:MY-dnUk2nqXslcfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> >> Outgoing is unneeded?
> >>
> >> You don't allow your users to use DVDs, CDs, or Floppies?
> >>
> >> If you do, outgoing is needed.
> >>
> >> I'd hate to have you support my users.
> >>
> >> At least you keep reinforcing your lack of experience.
> >>
> >> And make me laugh.
> >
> > Clueless newbies always expose themselves. Study up.
> >
> >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:KBk6d.449795$OB3.270981@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> >> >> Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to
> > ZA.
> >> >
> >> > Clueless. The SP2 Firewall is entirely adequate and IS supported by
> > MS's
> >> > Automatic Updates
> >> >
> >> >> For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING
> >> >
> >> > Outgoing is unneeded. Those case are caught by a proper virus
scanner
> > and
> >> > spyware scanner. Outgoing checking is for a few geeks and NOT the
> > general
> >> > computer user who needs simple and always works and easily
> >> > configured....etc.
> >> >
> >> > Any extra apps needed to support the basic OS/Inet functionality is
to
> > be
> >> > AVOIDED if at all possible if the functionality is present in the OS.
> > Do
> >> > you remember Netroom and Stacker hell?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>use of the internet like ZA.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, wait, maybe the CPU is slowing down.....
> >> >> "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:A7a6d.446663$OB3.76200@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 6:17:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The newbie techs come up short when faced with a real pro.

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AUo6d.62019$as2.44778@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:JdOdnamcdtQFiMfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
September 29, 2004 12:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:
> "Jerome M. Katz" <jerrymkatz@NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mv7il0ded7jj6mfr8j2jlnu42gbjv42csj@4ax.com...
>
>>Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
>
> Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
> longer needed.

But it's recommended - as Jerome mentioned, make sure you have a current
version of ZA and it will work fine.

>>If you do not
>>have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
>>perfectly with the Windows Security Center
>
> But just add more overhead and something else to fiddle with for NO added
> important functionality.

Really? I think checking outgoing requests to the 'Net to be an
important function.

>>so that if you have Zone
>>Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.
>
> Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>
> Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.

Only if you want less protection than ZA offers and can guarantee that
you'll never get a back door Trojan or worm or spyware.
Anonymous
September 29, 2004 12:45:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:%Cu6d.4453$kq6.2855285@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>> "Jerome M. Katz" <jerrymkatz@NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:mv7il0ded7jj6mfr8j2jlnu42gbjv42csj@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
>>
>> Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
>> longer needed.
>
> But it's recommended - as Jerome mentioned, make sure you have a current
> version of ZA and it will work fine.
>
>>>If you do not
>>>have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
>>>perfectly with the Windows Security Center
>>
>> But just add more overhead and something else to fiddle with for NO added
>> important functionality.
>
> Really? I think checking outgoing requests to the 'Net to be an important
> function.
>
>>>so that if you have Zone
>>>Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.
>>
>> Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>>
>> Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>
> Only if you want less protection than ZA offers and can guarantee that
> you'll never get a back door Trojan or worm or spyware.



Which, so far as I know, no one can guarantee, which is why people who post
in concrete/no exceptions/unqualified absolutes have no credibility so far
as I'm concerned.

The newly arrived "expert" acts as if his way is the only way and is
foolproof - which we all know is ludicrous.


Stew
September 29, 2004 12:51:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:N7d6d.57537$as2.28171@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to ZA.
>>>For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>What Tom said. I've got people doubled-up with the XP Firewall and Sygate
>>Personal Firewall for this very reason - potentially malicious OUTgoing
>>activity.
>
> No, get proper virus scanning and spyware checking as that handles
> outgoing.

Bullshit! Sorry to be so harsh, but it's called for when someone is
passing out such terrible advice. Spyware checking software only scan
your system when you ask and remove malware from your HDD. They do
nothing about software which tries to access the 'Net - that's what ZA
is for. (my malware experience is limited to Adware & Spybot)

> Doubling up a machine with excess trash is what the whole
> industry is trying to AVOID.

No kidding, when were you appointed to speak on behalf of the whole
industry? Based on your endless blather on laptop performance, you have
nothing positive to contribute.
September 29, 2004 12:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:JdOdnamcdtQFiMfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
>>Hmm, I owned one of the first 1000 IBM PCs off the assembly line. Worked
>>every major platform.
>>
>>Know one heck of a lot more than you do, as you prove with every single
>>post.
>
>
> Then you started very late. Every heard of Linc tape or MAP/FAP? Go back
> to school sonny.

Sure, how about SOAP (not the current software), IBSYS, RAMAC, drum memory?
September 29, 2004 12:55:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:

> The newbie techs come up short when faced with a real pro.

So you're a male hustler? Good luck, be sure to use condoms.
September 29, 2004 7:23:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

S.Lewis wrote:
> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
> news:%Cu6d.4453$kq6.2855285@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>>Ron Reaugh wrote:
>>
>>>"Jerome M. Katz" <jerrymkatz@NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mv7il0ded7jj6mfr8j2jlnu42gbjv42csj@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
>>>
>>>Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
>>>longer needed.
>>
>>But it's recommended - as Jerome mentioned, make sure you have a current
>>version of ZA and it will work fine.
>>
>>>>If you do not
>>>>have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
>>>>perfectly with the Windows Security Center
>>>
>>>But just add more overhead and something else to fiddle with for NO added
>>>important functionality.
>>
>>Really? I think checking outgoing requests to the 'Net to be an important
>>function.
>>
>>>>so that if you have Zone
>>>>Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.
>>>
>>>Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
>>>
>>>Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>>
>>Only if you want less protection than ZA offers and can guarantee that
>>you'll never get a back door Trojan or worm or spyware.
>
> Which, so far as I know, no one can guarantee, which is why people who post
> in concrete/no exceptions/unqualified absolutes have no credibility so far
> as I'm concerned.
>
> The newly arrived "expert" acts as if his way is the only way and is
> foolproof - which we all know is ludicrous.

Amen to that, Stew.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 1:02:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:%Cu6d.4453$kq6.2855285@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> > "Jerome M. Katz" <jerrymkatz@NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:mv7il0ded7jj6mfr8j2jlnu42gbjv42csj@4ax.com...
> >
> >>Windows XP Service Pack 2 should not disable Zone Alarm.
> >
> > Correct but the user should disable ZA after installing SP2 as ZA is no
> > longer needed.
>
> But it's recommended

Not by the competent.

> - as Jerome mentioned, make sure you have a current
> version of ZA and it will work fine.
>
> >>If you do not
> >>have Zone Alarm 5.1 (.something), upgrade to it. It will interface
> >>perfectly with the Windows Security Center
> >
> > But just add more overhead and something else to fiddle with for NO
added
> > important functionality.
>
> Really? I think checking outgoing requests to the 'Net to be an
> important function.

Not for the average user where the virus checker and spam checker are
covering that issue.

> >>so that if you have Zone
> >>Alarm on, the Windows firewall will not be on.
> >
> > Yes and that would be BACKWARDS.
> >
> > Enable SP2's Firewall and lose ZA.
>
> Only if you want less protection than ZA offers

That added protection is covering a slim to nil risk.

> and can guarantee that
> you'll never get a back door Trojan or worm or spyware.

You can come close enough with a good spyware checker and virus scanner.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 1:23:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:cIu6d.4489$kq6.2867114@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> > "S.Lewis" <stew1960@cover.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:N7d6d.57537$as2.28171@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >>news:j4qdnRYs1JlH3cTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> >>
> >>>Wow, that's terrible advice. The XP Firewall is mediocre compared to
ZA.
> >>>For example, it doesn't catch OUTGOING use of the internet like ZA.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>What Tom said. I've got people doubled-up with the XP Firewall and
Sygate
> >>Personal Firewall for this very reason - potentially malicious OUTgoing
> >>activity.
> >
> > No, get proper virus scanning and spyware checking as that handles
> > outgoing.
>
> Bullshit! Sorry to be so harsh, but it's called for when someone is
> passing out such terrible advice.

Like you huh. Tryin to get folks to buy snake oil.

> Spyware checking software only scan
> your system when you ask and remove malware from your HDD.

Clueless. The whole purpose of spyware scanners and virus scanners is to
find and remove programs that do those sorts of obnoxious activities. Good
ones do a very good job. With good checkers one does NOT need the overhead
nor hassle of a whole other OS/Inet support app to play chicken little games
for a non-existant threat. Lose ZA and use SP2's Firewall.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 1:23:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:9Lu6d.4504$kq6.2874112@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:JdOdnamcdtQFiMfcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> >
> >>Hmm, I owned one of the first 1000 IBM PCs off the assembly line.
Worked
> >>every major platform.
> >>
> >>Know one heck of a lot more than you do, as you prove with every single
> >>post.
> >
> >
> > Then you started very late. Every heard of Linc tape or MAP/FAP? Go
back
> > to school sonny.
>
> Sure, how about SOAP (not the current software), IBSYS, RAMAC, drum
memory?

All stuff from before you were born.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!