Re: W2K SP4 Hosed our PC - Need Help !!!

From: George Hester (hesterloli_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/01/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:24:48 -0500

They were all a result of IE6 in Windows 2000 

-- 
George Hester
__________________________________
"Steve N." <NoOne@nunya.biz> wrote in message news:Iwv0c.15574$aT1.7029@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 
> 
> Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:
> 
> > "Steve N." wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:
> >>
> >>>And this was said about SP3 and SP2 and <fill in any service pack to
> >>>any MS OS here> as well. By listening to all those advises you would
> >>>end up not installing any service pack ever ;-)
> >>>
> >>>For most computers, a SP install will go well, but of course, some
> >>>computers will get into trouble.
> >>>
> >>>We have installed SP4 on thousands of computers, and only a few
> >>>had issues afterwards.
> >>
> >>Yes, but a FEW did, didn't they? Why do you suppose that is?
> > 
> > 
> > I would think that most of those computers were mis-configured in
> > some way or in a "shaky" state before the service pack upgrade.
> 
> I would too, had I not seen enough evidence first hand to the contrary.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>And what do
> >>you consider to be an acceptible failure rate?
> > 
> > 
> > I would say somewhere between 0.5 and 1% is an acceptable failure rate.
> > I don't have exact numbers for the failure rate for our SP4 upgrades,
> > but it is less than 0.5%
> 
> At my home I have had 100% failure rate. At work I cnservatively 
> estimate close to 50% failure rate. (See below)
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>What if that failure rate
> >>is only 5% but YOUR personal computer just happens to be in that 5%? How
> >>does that make YOU feel? People are frustrated, all they want to do is
> >>use the computer they paid hard earned money for but instead they spend
> >>hours, even days just trying to get the damn thing to boot up after
> >>blindly following what the all-knowing Big Brother insisted they do.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I know it is very frustrating for those that it happens for,
> > especially if you did not make a backup of your data or system before
> > the upgrade (even if the SP install tells  you that ou should make
> > one before continuing with the install).
> 
> Backups are indeed good practice, but that's not really the point. The 
> point is that SP4 causes problems for a lot of people and Microsoft (and 
> you) are ignoring it (for the time being anyway). Instead of 
> recommending backups and making blanket statements, how about trying to 
> help figure out exactly WHAT is broken in SP4?
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>M$ pushes the updates and SPs at us, convincing us they are needed
> >>when they are not necessarily needed.
> > 
> > 
> > Our SP4 rollout has been mostly driven by security issues, having an
> > old service pack level makes it very complicated trying to have
> > control over all security updates needed for different configurations
> > and installed components and applications.
> 
> The only SP level I am aware of being absolutely necessary for recent 
> critical security updates currently offered by M$ is SP2, which oddly 
> enough, although there have been reports of SP2 being problematic, I 
> have never seen any trouble with. I have not seen many problems with SP3 
> either.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>You know what's needed? A stable OS, a decent a/v package, properly
> >>configured firewall and a little common sense concerning safe computing.
> >>Win2k SP2 and SP3 are proven fairly stable to me (and I deal with a
> >>pretty big number of computers, too.) Other than just plain crappy OEM
> >>pre-installs (usually from Dell) I have had very little problems with
> >>W2K as long as we stopped at SP3, kept a/v up to date and did regular
> >>disk maintenance.
> >>
> >>For what it's worth, for over two years I used Win2K raw, with NO
> >>updates or service packs applied at ALL and NEVER had a serious problem.
> >>
> >>But you're right, the same thing has been said about ALL service packs.
> >>  Have you ever wondered why? Do you think people just make this stuff up?
> > 
> > 
> > No, I don't think people make this stuff up, but using e.g. newsgroup
> > postings as a part of the assessment on how good a service pack is,
> > isn't really fair, because that is the place where people go to when
> > they have problems, and not when everything is hunky-dory.
> 
> Where else are you going to hear about it? I am sure there are hundreds 
> of thousands of PC happily churning away with Win2K SP4, but for a 
> growing number this is not the case.
> 
> My PERSONAL assesment of SP4 is based on direct experience, not just 
> what I read here or elsewhere. For example, I have three Win2K Pro 
> machines at my home. One has been running flawlessly for about 3 years. 
> Another has been for over a year. Another is a fairly new install and 
> has no software installed other than that which ships with the OS, 
> drivers for hardware, an a/v package (AVG) and a firewall (KPF). On all 
> three immediately after the insallation of SP4 the exact same issues 
> developed; missing program shortcuts, no Administrative Tools, SFC 
> failures, random lockups and forced restarts resulting in drive errors. 
> All three are M$ certified hardware, clean installs, current drivers, 
> nothing flakey at all. All pass OEM and 3rd party hardware diags with 
> flying colors.
> 
> On nearly every Win2K workstation I can think of that has had SP4 
> installed at work (where I support hundreds of Windows PCs, a fair 
> amount running Win2K) there has been general system instability, random 
> lockups and forced restarts. Two that I personally use (a desktop and a 
> laptop, different brands and certified Microsoft Compatible for 2K and 
> XP) I have had to remove SP4 for the same reasons. I seriously doubt 
> this is coincindental.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Torgeir, you do good, just please do it better and 
> please quit making excuses for Microsoft. Listen to the people - we are 
> trying to tell you that SP4 is a problem. Perhaps not for you, but for a 
> lot of the rest of us.
> 
> Steve
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: W2K SP4 Hosed our PC - Need Help !!!
    ... > I don't have exact numbers for the failure rate for our SP4 upgrades, ... > one before continuing with the install). ... point is that SP4 causes problems for a lot of people and Microsoft (and ... >>pretty big number of computers, ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Confusion Kaspersky requirements
    ... SP4 causes BSODs in some computers. ... Upgrading The ... Upgrading The Base or SP3 install to SP4 causes a BSOD ...
    (alt.comp.anti-virus)
  • Re: W2K SP4 Hosed our PC - Need Help !!!
    ... I agree, that is very bad, but no way that is the standard failure rate ... >> one before continuing with the install). ... > help figure out exactly WHAT is broken in SP4? ... type of issues isn't going to get the ball rolling at Microsoft. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: booting continuously
    ... Computers screw up all the time for many reasons. ... hours/days/weeks after SP4 install it doesn't necessarily mean the SP4 was ... but it took a significant amount of my expensive time. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Confusion Kaspersky requirements
    ... IE6 has a quite noticeable performance impact on ... SP4 causes BSODs in some computers. ... Upgrading The Base or SP3 install to SP4 causes a BSOD ...
    (alt.comp.anti-virus)