[Ham-Computers] WinXP Service Pack 2, Word of caution:,More on

[Herb Gerhardt]

Well after reading Microsoft's latest Tech Net Flash, Vol 6, Issue 17, it
sure scares me.  I am not smart enough to troubleshoot my computer if half
the things that even Microsoft is telling us that Service Pack 2 will do to
our machines.  They list some of the programs that I am running that will
not run after their Service Pack is installed.  I say no thanks Microsoft, I
am not one of your BETA Testers!  I will wait for their next patch that
hopefully fixes the problems they are about to create.

Check out the following links which come right from their Tech Net Flash:

	http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842242

	http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=843090

	http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=878474

	http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=883090

Just my two cents worth,

Herb, KB7UVC
NW APRS Group, West Sound Coordinator
Our WEB Site:  http://www.nwaprs.org

My NEW Email Address:  hgerhardt at wavecable.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ham-computers-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:ham-computers-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of
> jandlmiller at bellsouth.net
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:01 AM
> To: ham-computers at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Ham-Computers] WinXP Service Pack 2, Word of caution:,More on
>
>
> Thanks, Aaron, and I'm certain you have all of our best interests
> in mind as you issue your caution.  Perhaps, though, your
> information is too "alarmist" in nature.  That having been said
> I'd be the first to agree that if history is to be any measure of
> the success of SP2, or anything Microsoft, our personal attention
> to caution is in order.
>
> The media has been all over Microsoft for quite some time to
> finally "come clean" with some public disclosure of what will and
> won't work with the SP2.  The online and print media is chuck
> full of details on half a hundred or more applications that
> simply won't coexist with the SP2, at this time, including, but
> not limited to many of Microsoft's own products, and an
> apparently popular firewall (not McAfee) that doesn't meet the
> bar.  When I visited the Websites of these noncompliants, or
> called them, they are very upfront with their SP2 status, as well
> as their bad mouth of the SP2.
>
> It appears from my reading of the test results that the new SP2
> "firewall" may be so "soft" that our present personal firewalls
> need to remain in place.
>
> But most of the lurking problems with SP2 do not appear to
> involve those with XP/Home and simple Ethernets to connect all
> Win98SE and above machines in our homes.
>
> Quite a different story for those like you in a complex corporate
> ennvironment.  You folks may want to wait a very long time before
> you sign on, if you ever do.
>
> We all should have been about this business of contacting our
> computer manufacturer, software publishers, and so forth, to
> determine "whether" or "how well" their products have been tested
> and will work with SP2.
>
> Allowing Microsoft, or anyone else, the privilege to download to
> our machines without a challenge needs some serious thought.  But
> let's balance our desire for rugged individualism and control
> with the overall benefit of receiving patches and updates (that
> should never have been necessary in the first place)as soon as
> they may help keep us out of hot water.
>
> 73, John, W0IKT
>