Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: "Bill" <Bill541@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:04:49 -0400
"Bob I" <birelan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%232RPDKryFHA.4032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The question was the equivalent of "Will you get hit by a bus tomorrow?"
In other words, you don't know anything about this, and you are emphasizing
it by using a bad metaphor.
Let me rephrase the issue in a much simpler manner. Is upgrading to a
particular Win2000 service pack, IN AND OF ITSELF, a bad move for reasons of
security, stability, or flexibility.
To repeat my examples, which you seemed to have missed:
# Example: One of the Office 2000 patches, SR-(something), blocked access to
# almost all Outlook attachments (which smacks of a Microsoft lawyer thing,
# but whatever). This reduced functionality.
#
# Although it's another company, since 2001, Symantec's yearly editions of
# SystemWorks have had less and less "Norton" functionality (presumably to
# make it easier for less sophisticated users).
#
# The moral of this story is that it's not uncommon for modern updates,
# upgrades, and service packs to reduce functionality or introduce problems.
#
# Simply speaking, I just want to be aware of any difficulties, or
# (unofficial) incompatibilities, that the Windows 2000 service packs might
# cause.
Is there clear enough for you now?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Bob I
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- References:
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Bill
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Tom Pepper Willett
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Bill
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Bill
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- From: Bob I
- Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- Prev by Date: Re: How to enabe monitor?
- Next by Date: Re: IP/Connection problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- Next by thread: Re: Windows 2000 Service Packs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|