Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Herb Fritatta wrote:
>
>>Can you point me to a reference that categorically identifies *any*
>>piece of adware or spyware which is known to conflict with SP2 or
>>*known* to create installation problems? Now granted, common sense
>>tells us, or should tell us, that those are undesireable things, but
>>you are being nothing more than a parrot, and not a very bright one,
>>when you repeat the problems-are-caused-by-spyware mantra. I find it
>>very amusing that SP2 apologists like Carey and Jupiter are fond of
>>saying that MS couldn't possibly have tested SP2 on all possible
>>configurations, which is certainly true, but out of the other sides of
>>their mouths they tell us, as Carey does in this very thread, "A
>>well-maintained PC will install SP2 without any adverse installation
>>issues." But if MS didn't test all possible configurations, how does
>>he know that to be true? He doesn't.
>
>
> First off, I do not appreciate the implication that I am not intelligent. I
> presented you with an intelligent argument and essentially received the
> response of "Bawk Bawk".
>
> I have personally removed adware that was installed on the machines prior to
> SP2's installation and SP2 had, in its ignorance of what the application
> did, opened the appropriate holes in the firewall. I have also been to
> machines where users installed applications known to contain spyware/malware
> and because they wanted their Bonzi Buddy/Weatherbug/iWon/P2P crud to work,
> they just answered "Yes, allow it" to whatever they saw - thus opening the
> necessary ports to allow more spying/ads, etc - then wonder why they are
> getting them.
>
> I never stated that ALL well maintained PCs would install SP2 without
> adverse effects - I did quite the obvious. I did state that the ratio is
> far from 50/50 and closer to 80% good/20% bad with 75% of that 20% bad
> being user controllable and 25% being either Microsoft's or some third party
> application/hardware manufacturer's fault. (Just like when people started
> going from Windows 98 to Windows XP and the Printer/Scanner manufacturers
> did not put out drivers so that people would be (in essence) forced to buy
> new compatible scanners/printers.)
>
> I have seen SP2's firewall mess with HP printers, whose full drivers for
> some reason want HP to send them data - what's up with that?!
>
> Random find..
>
http://chris-cohen.blogspot.com/2004/09/old-spyware-causes-new-service-pack-2.html
>
> As for what Carey or Jupiter or anyone else says - *shrug*, again - I
> beleive someone should do their own research before doing anything,
> especially something that is as large as a service pack where their computer
> and all the information on it is concerned. Essentially, although I may
> respect what you, Jupiter and/or Carey have to say - I will not blindly
> follow the advice.
>
> If you are going to quote me on the next post, quote this next paragraph:
>
> I never said that all the problems were caused merely by spyware.. I said
> that of the 20% bad that seem to be common, 75% of those could be fixed by a
> user putting forth the effort to make sure their PC is ready for SP2 - it's
> not a small upgrade, it's not a minor change - common sense says you don't
> go buy a new couch for your home before you measure the door to make sure it
> will fit. (Or make sure it goes with the decor, won't clash with your other
> furniture, etc.) Spyware is ONE part, hardware drivers another, software
> patches and looking to see if your current software has had problems with
> SP2 (visit their web page - they usually have messages in their support
> section if they have had issues), defragmenting your hard drive, backing up
> important files and folders (again - MAJOR change here - don't be a moron
> about it), checking to make sure even your system BIOS is compatible.
>
> As with any system-wide upgrade; go in with a plan, don't go in blind.
>
The advice to be prepared is good and I have no argument with it. I
think I owe you at least a partial apology because I went off on you
(i.e., I responded directly to your post) when my indignation should
have been more diffusely aimed. That said, I still maintain that there's
far too much assumption that individual users must have done something
wrong when an SP2 install goes awry.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram