Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete

• Previous message: Rick: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete"
• In reply to: Rick: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete"
• Next in thread: Howard Kaikow: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete on 5 above groups!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:14:23 -0400

Rick--

I appreicate your post. I think Milly is consistently over-sensitive when
she knows this software so admirably well. If someone posts about an XP
issue in an Office group, it isn't because they intend to go to the wrong
place, or spam for money which is the common demoninator of most spammers,
or just flail about for the first group they can click on with a blindfold,
it's because the issue may be sufficiently confusing *to them* that they
aren't sure if it's an Office or an OS issue. Sometimes, rarely, they don't
think about where they are posting, or it is brand new to them as it was to
Milly once upon a time, and there are times when even people experienced
with this software since Win 1.0 or 3.0 or Office 1.0 aren't always sure.

I also believe if a post is labeled *4 New KBs to Address MOS 03 SP1 install
problems*, and those problems are multiplying exponentially, that the reader
has the option not to click their mouse or keyboard combo either because
they already know the info or they don't feel they need or want to. The
bell shaped curve of people who could can't install Office 03 SP1 and hasn't
read those KBs probably will need to or have someone who helps them read
them instead.

There may be a real compare and contrast master's thesis out there for
someone as to the qualities of Office.setup and Office.update groups, but
I'm not sure of all the nuances that contrast them.

I don't know how I'd assess this prodigious amount of install difficulty if
I were Sloan Crayton (MSFT) or Renete [MS] or Bob Cooley [MSFT] and had
their "inside-baseball insight as to why this happened, or someone who is
familiar with the Beta Testing of these service packs, and the special
problems that seem to require such intensive care with Resource Kit tools
and a gamut of MSKBs, particularly Office SP1 2003-- but I believe that
Microsoft just completed a beta testing program for their operating system
Windows XP that was for a service pack called SP2 that is currently
releasing. The Windows SP clearly has exponentially less install problems
at any time during its beta builds and certainly now that it's RTM.

The vast majority of problems with XP SP2 are not *installation problems*
either via the network download that was available on August 10, or
Automatic or Windows Update's much smaller download. *They are 3rd party
compatibility problems that don't have very much at all to do with MSFT
whatsoever; they have to do with a bell shpaed curve of 3rd party software
vendors who have chosen to address XP SP2 (Build 2180) by saying *nothing*
on their web sites and doing nothing.* They could have said 1) Here's an
patch or batch file to get through ports on the Windows Firewall 2) Our
product is perfectly compatible with SP2 3) We don't have a clue what to
tell you, but we'll get around to looking for compatibility sometime between
XP SP2 and the next Beta, Longhorn--maybe we can sell you a new version of
our 3rd party software on XP SP2 coat tails.

This seems to be the novel approach of Norton who has a patch delivered not
by a download on their site, but by a component called Live Update. The
only paradoxical catch is that Live Update breaks without the patch--that's
a real chicken-egg dilema.

In contrast, Office 2003's service pack, is a service pack for an
application that Bill Gates told financial analysts "defines Office
productivity" as quoted in Technology section of the NY Times on August
16--two days ago. Along these lines Steven A. Ballmer sent MSFT employees
an email last month that said "Our biggest growth opportunity is with our
existing base of Office users." The times article went on to state "The
information worker business at Microsoft, which is nearly all from Office,
had revenues of $10.8 billion in the year ended in June, and operating
profit of more than $7.15 billion. As a stand-alone business, Office - which
on average sells for about $275 - would be slightly larger than the
second-largest software company, Oracle, and far more profitable. Only the
Windows operating system, the other pillar of Microsoft, is slightly
larger."

The article goes on to quote a former Stanford University professor, Anoop
Gupta, who is VP of MSFT's Real Time Collaberation group that Office is
evolving into an online culture with a paradigm shift that is morphing it
into an online service with apps like Live Meeting and
conferencing/collaberation features in Share Point, One Note, and Infopath
along with the dimension that XML and DRM architecture brings.

If Mr. Ballmer is right, and the biggest growth opportunity is Office, why
did so many multi-faceted bright and talented people let this Service Pack
release when it so darned hard to install compared to Windows XP SP2. If
you can't install it, you can't use it--and that's when setup or update
obstacles become very important. Anyone who has dealt with a thorny
cascade of setup problems comes to learn this rapidly. These install
problems should have been overcome with considerably more success and less
special tools and KBs before they were made available--even if it took 3
more months.

As to your insightful comments about MSFT's presumption, I agree with that
vein. I understand that learning is rewarding, but I'm not sure that the
one-upsmanship that seemsto accompany the ability to interpret verbose
logs, parse GUIDs and reg subkeys, interpret hex messages, or Hungarian
notation the way Charles Simonyi and his colleagues do is something that
every Office user needs to aspire to.

http://www.edge.org/digerati/simonyi/

To me the meaning of WYSIWYG also includes being simple to install so that
you can concentrate on enjoying the features and productivity of this
software that would have cut my time doing papers for class and other
documents (visions of One Note) in college easily by 80% if not more. But
maybe MSKBs and the Office Resource kit are going to need to be within arms
reach of every secretary the way type eraser and a spelling dictionary were
in a different era when Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen were riding their bikes at
ages 13 and 15 to "C Cubed" to show the adults their programming errors
with the DEC computer, and how to fix them.

Best,

Chad Harris
________________________________________________

"Rick" <Rick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B996C8C-54E4-4BF2-8CB3-83296FCE7824@microsoft.com...
I see no intent of spam from your post and I guess Milly is just being a
little over-sensitive. I agree with you that there are lots of posts asking
about the same problem over and over again from various office users. They
may or may not had read the KBs for their specific problems depending on
their level of knowledge.

Another obvious reason for these repeat postings are that there are no
replys to them and they know of no other sources to ask their questions. If
only the MVPs or any experienced users are willing to reply, and not
presuming that the poster should do a search or read the KB first before
posting which I do believe that most posters had already done their search
for answers but to no avail, if they are able to find an immediate solutions
from their search, they would not have posted in this Newsgroup waiting for
that someone to help & reply which at the mean time is mostly not happening.

This is my personal opinion and I don't mean to offend, but if I did, I
apologise beforehand

"Gregg Hill" wrote:

> If you had only posted in the suggested group, I would have missed it. I
> found this thread during a Google Groups search, and viola, there's the
> answer!
>
> THANK YOU!
>
>
> "Chad Harris" <ddram32_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OwKyE8UhEHA.1652@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Milly-- (MillyS@donteventhinkaboutmailingmemvps.org) (are there a lot of
> > people thinking seriously about this?) The problem of getting Office
> > apps' SP1 updates in are showing up on all these groups, and most are
> > shoowing up on mpo.update statistically but they are prominent and
> > ubiquitous on the rest.
> >
> > The intent is to see the posts go down, that means that people aren't
> having
> > the problems that anyone reasonable at any level knows they should not
> > be
> > having. They should be spending their time on enjoying Office, One
> > Note,
> > and Outlook and moving their learning curve from the dictum that 95% of
> > Office users can only use 3% of its features. MSFT is a great company,
> but
> > it's products have to be more intuitive and that is hardly to be equated
> > with dumb downed. When SP launched I saw a lot of MSFT meetings where
> > the
> > presenter started saying to groups something like "We don't want you to
> have
> > to worry your little heads about What's Behind the Gui"--not at Technet,
> TS2
> > or MSDN, but to IT Pros at professional firms who just laughed.
> >
> > Sadly, because of pressure borne by ignorance, Smart Tags were whacked
> > out
> > of XP RTM during its last Beta because people believed Redmond was using
> > them to spy--faster than Tony Soprano would take out a troublesome
> > storekeeper on his trash route.
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1001-269167.html?legacy=cnet
> >
> >
> > *There was no intent to spam, nor was there a spam result.* KBs ain't
> > no
> > spam when this many peoples be having moocho trouble getting a hotfix
> > in.
> >
> > I *know a bell shaped curve of Enterprise decision makers would not be
> happy
> > that their Sys Ads or IT staff has to resort to interpreting verbose
> > logs
> or
> > parsing product code GUIDs or download subkeys or hacking the registry
> > in
> > serial fashion* so that Suzy the Administrative Assistance or the back
> > office personnel can use Office to get out documents or put something on
> an
> > Outlook calendar or meeting schedule. Nor should they have to, but
> > that's
> > the way things are in Redmonville, North Carolina and Dallas Texasvill
> rhatt
> > now.
> >
> > Spam is when some bozo or bozoess posts something entirely off topic to
> > helping with these particular software and hardware problems and those
> > are
> > ususally promptly removed. If you think MSKBs on this topic on these
> groups
> > that were carefully selected are spam, petition the boys and girls at
> > Redmond and Dallas campuses who monitor these groups to remove those KBs
> you
> > don't think are relevant there.
> >
> > So if it's spam, Milly why am I seeing so many posts on the other 3
> > groups
> > that I hit that are headed "Can't install Office 2003 update."
> > Sometimes
> > it's can't install Outlook SP1 or One Note SP1 and although there are a
> few
> > reasons for each, many have the same common demonimator as the Office
> > 2003
> > SP1 problem and sometimes Office 2K or Office XP install problems
> > outlined
> > above.
> >
> > There's another point. Time. Some people who read the Outlook group
> > for
> > info, don't take or have time to read Office.misc, Offic.setup,
> > office.update but experience the problem.
> >
> > Another is that you know what a KB is, and since you have so many ways
> > to
> > keep up with them at your fingertips, just don't click a topic as
> irrelevant
> > and spammy as "Four New KBs issued on Updating Office 2003 SP1--although
> > I
> > think the volume of people I run into and see on the web having the
> problems
> > is truly epidemic and pandemic and MSFT ought to address it with the MSI
> > beyond Windows � Installer. V 3.00.3790.2180 in XP SP2 RTM and Office
> > .net/Longhorn/Version 12 that's percolating right now at Redmond,
> > Dallas,
> > and North Carolina, maybe Bangalore.
> >
> > Just take a good look. There are general Office SP1 questions on each
> group
> > that I hit. They all should be directed to office.setup or
> > office.update.
> > *but they aren't.* They are on all these Office related groups--just
> look
> > at the posts. And Milly is right there in case Ms. Perpicia Tick
> > doesn't
> > hit it to tell them where to take their post.
> >
> > There was no intent to spam and it wasn't spam. If you think it's spam,
> > explain why there are about 500 posts with basically the same question
> with
> > a differential diagnosis of a very few causes that Sloan tried to hit in
> the
> > KBs just out.
> >
> > The average Office user isn't going to read the KBs at all nor is their
> help
> > disk, and unfortunately they don't know the existence of these groups,
> > but
> > that's another issue. The average Windows user wouldn't know a KB from
> > an
> > SUV unfortunately. Ask the next time your in a super market check out
> line
> > or buying a dress. Ask how many of them are fluent in Hex or Hungarian
> > notation.
> > Sometimes just a little too much is assumed at Redmond.
> >
> > I see this phenom a lot. People will duplicate post instead of cross
> post,
> > and they will continue their threads erratically and sporadically on
> diffent
> > groups at the same time for the same question. So one will have 5
> > posters
> > and one will have 10 posters trying to help with the exact same question
> > posted on different groups by the same poster at staggered intervals.
> >
> > You're not speaking for everyone. It's not spam for some people. It
> will
> > cut down on posts and frustration for more people if they read Sloan's
> KBs.
> > I see a lot of posts on each group that I hit that should properly be
> > directed to One--OfficeUpdates, but they aren't. That's precisely why
> > the
> > crosspost was done. To get the KBs to people on the groups who all have
> > multiple "I can't get my One Note, Outlook and Office SP1 in. And there
> is
> > more diifficulty in getting this particular SP in for Office 2003 than
> there
> > has been for years of Windows and Office service packs. Considerably
> more.
> >
> > Most people are not going to be able parse KBs, GUIDs, and verbose logs
> just
> > to update Office nor should they have to. But that's apparently the way
> it
> > is for reasons that are still not quite clear with all due respect to
> > the
> > major etiologies as posted by MSFT. The average Office user on the
> > planet
> > is not going to metabolize these Resource Kit tools well although a lot
> of
> > us enjoy learning about them from people kind enough and skillful enough
> to
> > teach us (like you, like Sloan, like the Outlook and Office experts and
> > others). Again just yell Office Resource Kit in your supermarket
> > checkout
> > line and see if it gets the same response as "J-Lo's marrying again."
> >
> > My point--all the people in your checkout line need and use Office and
> > Mr.
> > Ballmer and Mr. Gates and Mr. Sinofsky darn well hope that continues.
> > See
> > NY Times Article on Office at the bottom.
> >
> > 1) registry keys that are way too easily corrupted
> > 2) Local install cache corruptions that MSFT can't fix after 11 versions
> and
> > Office 12, Office Longhorn, Office Blackcomb, and Office .net or
> > whatever
> in
> > the oven.
> > 3) There is a tool available from the Office Resource Kit web site that
> will
> > fix that for you. The Local Installation Source Tool that provides the
> > ability to repair the Local Installation Source is available for
> > download
> > from
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/journ/LISTool.htm.
> > In addition of repairing the LIS, it will also provide the ability to
> move
> > it to another
> > disk drive.
> >
> > 2. You are seeing the following message""This patch package could not be
> > opened. Verify that the patch package
> > exists and that you can access it, or contact the application vendor to
> > verify that this is a valid Windows Installer patch package."
> > or some other patch specific issue.
> >
> > Try using the Windows Installer Cleanup Utility detailed here to
> > uninstall
> > Office:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;290301
> >
> > When you reinstall don't forget to not delete the local cache files at
> > the
> > end of the installation so you will have your Local Install Source
> > intact
> > and will be able to patch your Office installation without the possible
> need
> > of the CD.
> >
> > This article is speaking to concerns MSFT has about their cash cow
> > Office
> > and most of these people aren't reading newsgroups, KBs, Technet Flash,
> > or
> > any Office newsletters.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/technology/16office.html
> >
> > Ambitious Package to Raise Productivity (and Microsoft's Profit)
> > By STEVE LOHR
> >
> > Published: August 16, 2004
> >
> >
> > EDMOND, Wash. - To most of the computer-using world, Microsoft Office is
> the
> > familiar workhorse of the desktop, a collection of software for creating
> > documents, spreadsheets and presentations.
> >
> > But for Microsoft, which is starting to see its growth slow as it ages,
> > reinventing that suite of old reliables - including Word, Excel and
> > PowerPoint - has become nothing less than a key to its future.
> >
> > "Office defines business productivity," Bill Gates, Microsoft's
> > chairman,
> > told financial analysts in July. He added that "the productivity area is
> > probably the most important franchise that we have."
> >
> > Advertisement
> >
> >
> > With that focus, Microsoft is now pursuing a strategy to transform
> > Office
> > from a bundle of programs on personal computers into a family of
> > software
> > that can put Microsoft's technology deeper into the operations of
> corporate
> > data centers. As Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft's chief executive, wrote
> > in
> an
> > e-mail message to employees last month, "Our biggest growth opportunity
> > is
> > with our existing base of Office users."
> >
> > Microsoft is banking on the Office initiative to help it fend off the
> > challenge from open-source software and other competitors. But if the
> > plan
> > stumbles, Microsoft's hopes for sustained growth and greater profits
> > could
> > come under heavy pressure.
> >
> > The logic of building on the Office franchise is not hard to see, given
> that
> > it has more than 90 percent of the market for office software
> applications.
> >
> > The information worker business at Microsoft, which is nearly all from
> > Office, had revenues of $10.8 billion in the year ended in June, and
> > operating profit of more than $7.15 billion. As a stand-alone business,
> > Office - which on average sells for about $275 - would be slightly
> > larger
> > than the second-largest software company, Oracle, and far more
> > profitable.
> > Only the Windows operating system, the other pillar of Microsoft, is
> > slightly larger.
> >
> > Traditional Office programs helped enhance productivity by allowing
> workers
> > to easily create and modify digital documents. The aim of the new
> initiative
> > is to increase the productivity with new tools for collaboration,
> > communications, planning and document handling.
> >
> > New programs - like SharePoint, LiveMeeting, OneNote and InfoPath - have
> > been introduced in the last year or so as part of the "Office system," a
> > term Microsoft adopted last fall to replace "Office suite."
> >
> > The new design makes programs like Word, Excel and Outlook e-mail part
> > of
> > collaborative work spaces. In theory, a worker working in Word could tap
> > into all the corporate information on a customer or project.
> >
> > "Making collaboration faster, easier and more efficient will be the next
> > revolution in worker productivity, and we want to be in the forefront,"
> said
> > Peter Rinearson, vice president for new business development in
> Microsoft's
> > information worker group. "The goal is to make Office a tool that
> > steadily
> > delivers productivity improvements. It becomes a competitive advantage
> > for
> > the companies that use it well. If you don't have it, you can't keep
> > up."
> >
> > Automating collaborative work, economists and analysts agree, is a
> promising
> > frontier for productivity gains. The low-cost, networked communications
> > of
> > the Internet make it a possibility. But there is a long way to go.
> Analysts
> > estimate that 95 percent of today's workers use the telephone and e-mail
> for
> > team projects. Microsoft has plenty of competition in the emerging
> > market,
> > and Office's past success could prove an obstacle.
> >
> > "Microsoft is trying to make Office less a product and more like an
> > online
> > service," said Nate Root, an analyst for Forrester Research. "Adoption
> > is
> > going to be slow because Microsoft is trying to change the paradigm.
> > It's
> a
> > fundamental cultural change in how people think of and use Office."
> >
> > Yet across the Microsoft corporate campus, there is only optimism.
> >
> > Anoop Gupta, a former Stanford University professor and a vice president
> of
> > Microsoft's real-time collaboration group, points to Microsoft's own
> > experience with Web conferencing as proof of the new efficiencies. The
> > company's use of LiveMeeting, a Microsoft conferencing program, has
> > increased to 40,000 hours a week from 2,000 hours a week a year ago. Mr.
> > Gupta says that one of every five face-to-face meetings can be replaced
> with
> > Web conferencing tools, and Microsoft estimates that it will save $70
> > million in reduced travel this year.
> >
> >
> >
> > Continued
> > 1 | 2 | Next>>
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Chad Harris
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
> <MillyS@donteventhinkaboutmailingmemvps.org>
> > wrote in message news:u9hlNEUhEHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > While we know that you mean well, please do not spam the news groups. A
> > simple posting to m.p.o.misc would have been sufficient.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > --�
> > Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
> >
> > Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
> > the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
> > account will be deleted without reading.
> >
> > After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Chad Harris
> asked:
> >
> > | *Recent KBs that May Help with the Epidemic or Pandemic of Office 2003
> > | Installation Problems*
> > |
> > |
> > | You cannot update your Office 2003 program to Service Pack 1 (August
> > | 17, 2004)
> > | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;884298
> > |
> > | Description of numbering scheme for product code GUIDs in Office 2003
> > | (August 17, 2004)
> > | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=832672
> > |
> > | Frequently asked questions about the local install source feature in
> > | Office 2003(August 17, 2004)
> > | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=830168
> > |
> > | How to troubleshoot an update installation by using log files in
> > | Office 2003 (August 13, 2004)
> > | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884290
> > |
> > | hth,
> > |
> > | Chad Harris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

• Previous message: Rick: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete"
• In reply to: Rick: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete"
• Next in thread: Howard Kaikow: "Re: Four KBs to address problems epidemic, ubiquitous and replete on 5 above groups!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]