Re: All who think SP2 is SOOOO great,
From: Don Taylor (dont_at_agora.rdrop.com)
Date: 09/08/04
- Next message: Kelmen Wong: "Re: SP2 havoc! X("
- Previous message: Rick \: "Re: drive says f: drive"
- In reply to: Stephen Harris: "Re: All who think SP2 is SOOOO great,"
- Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "RE: All who think SP2 is SOOOO great,"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:13:52 -0500
"Stephen Harris" <Stephen_P_Harris@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:413E22FB.5040708@neo.rr.com...
>> In my opinion, SP2 is a great upgrade.
>> However, also in my opinion, Microsoft was too confident (incorrectly, as
>> it turned out) that virtually no users would have any major problems with
>> it.
>A recent survey of 44,000 SP2 ugrades showed 90% had no problems.
Excuse me, but wasn't that the same survey where they looked at the
machines and 10% of them had one or more of the files on the
"potential problem software list"?
That really has very little to do with whether randomly selected
people doing upgrades have problems or not. Many folks here have
claimed they don't have any of those items and have had problems.
Other claim to have some of those items and don't have problems.
I'd DEARLY love to see the results of a phone poll of 10,000 randomly
selected individuals who downloaded SP2 and ask how many of them
saw a problem when they did this. And as someone previously pointed
out, just because you haven't seen a problem often doesn't say much,
you may only exercise a few percent of all the stuff installed
there, or maybe only exercise a small part of it immediately after
doing SP2.
But, if you have the source of 44,000 randomly selected individuals
who really did the upgrade and then reported whether they had
problems or not I'd REALLY like to see the raw data.
(And if 10% of the 50 million pc's in the country got whacked with
a problem think what your 5 million customers think of you about now)
Thank you
>That percentage is not equal to "virtually no users would have any major
>problems with it." However, I never saw a claim made by Microsoft that
>virtually no user would have major problems. Do you have a reference
>for your wording from a Microsoft source? I can't believe they said anything
>that stupid, but I suppose it is possible... computer just don't work that
>way.
>> In Microsoft's defense, the amount of testing that they did was
>> unprecedented, and I don't think that there is anything more that they
>> could have done to have made this release more "problem free". Part of
>> the "problem" is that the user base is not "techies", and doesn't even
>> know what a BIOS, Prescott or Firewall are, much less how to use any of
>> them.
>>
>No they are not techies. But I don't think they need to be techies, just
>computer literate. Backups are not difficult, and I think computer literacy
>is enough to make a backup. So again I disagree with a position that you
>use (the other description is "virtually"). The "problem" is that though 99%
>of users have heard advice stressing making backups maybe 10% practice
>making backups. They have the 'can't be bothered attitude' or the 'it will
>never happen to me' superiority complex. I don't think it is Microsoft's
>fault or responsibility that people have to learn the hard way.
>> The lesson here is that you just can't release an upgrade of this
>> magnitude which is going to be so problem free for everyone that you
>> should go out and tell the entire world to just turn on automatic updates
>> and get it automatically. Hopefully, this is a lesson that MS has now
>> leared as well.
>Again, I think there is a problem with this conclusion. In your words:
>> In my opinion, SP2 is a great upgrade.
>I think that means it should be released. Now by what method? What
>is the alternative method that eliminates the upgrade from reaching
>the hands of people who don't make backups (so that they can fix
>any resulting problems) or discriminates their level of computer
>expertise. Should they fill out a questionaire in order to qualify?
>I think automatic updates is as good as making a large download
>or ordering a cd. Yes, a few people have automatically download
>and install updates enabled. And if that were not enabled they might
>choose not to install SP2; they might decide well I don't have a backup
>and I'm a computer dummy so I better hire somebody or just do without.
>But any update has the potential of causing a problem on a computer.
>So that means all the beneficial updates will not get installed (if you
>turn off automatic download and install) by all people who don't know
>enough to login into Microsoft and check for updates. There is always
>going to be a gap in whatever release method is chosen.
>Computers have not evolved to the state where the users do not have to
>take responsibility for how the computer is used. If a user knows that
>they have not made a backup (and very few users are unaware that they
>ought to have a backup) and they are not very competent with using a
>computer, then they can hire somebody or turn off automatic updates.
>I think it would be a ghastly moral mistake to deprive some users from
>this upgrade in order to protect some users like Jim, who exactly deserves
>his problem. The "problem" really is that he has no backup of important
>email, not that there is an inconvenience of the SP2 installation procedure.
>No upgrade can ever be created which will install correctly on all
>computers.
>So I don't see anything wrong with the MS approch to the best practical
>result. It is a common thing in life that there are no rules available to
>find
>a perfect way of taking census in order to apportion government seats
>by population. Neither the census nor the apportioning method.
>I mean do you think MS should learn the lesson to turn off all automatic
>updates? SP2 is just a collection of updates. Which ones should not
>be made available for public distribution? Many of the SP2 updates
>were released prior to SP2. There is no possible way of predicting
>which update will cause a problem on which user machine. That is a
>mathematical principle. Since you might think I am overstating the
>case I will provide a reference (also since I asked for one from you).
>http://www.cis.udel.edu/~case/colt.html
>I notice you did not provide an alternative solution.
>Much of this is associated with game theory,
>Stephen
- Next message: Kelmen Wong: "Re: SP2 havoc! X("
- Previous message: Rick \: "Re: drive says f: drive"
- In reply to: Stephen Harris: "Re: All who think SP2 is SOOOO great,"
- Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "RE: All who think SP2 is SOOOO great,"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
