"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?
