What is SP2 doing - apart from trashing everybody's PC??

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hugh! There's your problem. You did all that to your "clean" computer. That
is, a computer without the requisite latest M/B drivers having been
installed. I own 3 Asus A7N8X Deluxe 2.0 M/B's, so I think I know.

You need the chipset drivers installed! Load the O/S. Then install the
latest version of Directx (you need this to install the chipset drivers).
Then, install the M/B drivers. Suggest Nvidia version 5.10 (although ver.
4.27 are stable also)! Then, update to your hearts content!

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

"Hugh" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25f001c49f46$e0d46700$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Well I certainly touched a few nerves there!!
>
> I like to think I am very careful: Norton firewall and
> AV, update all the time from Windows update, regularly
> use AdAware and SpyBot, back up my data, including
> mailboxes and address books, If you don't believe the
> last I can show you the DVDs!
>
> To be doubly sure, because I had a hardware problem prior
> to it (power supply died and MoBo was rather ancient)I
> installed the new hardware (ASUS MoBO - A7N8X with an
> Athlon 2400XP processor 512 mb RAM) and then I went for a
> completely clean install of XP (reformatted HD), updated
> as required by the Windows Update site and then
> downloaded SP2. So apart from the aforementioned Norton
> there was nothing on the HD apart from Win XP.
>
> I posted the below on the newsgroup too and then read
> other people's posts about probs they were having.
>
> Still can't see the WinXP supported (yes I looked at all
> the SP2 documentation on the site and checked
> compatablities) AC97 sound chip nor the on board RJ45
> 10/100 Ethernet port. Made sure I got the latest drivers
> from Windows etc. My BIOS reports both chips but Win XP
> does not see them.
>
> So I installed a stand alone PCI LAN Card, having first
> disabled the RJ45 on-board in BIOS, WInXP sees it,
> installs drivers and then "hides" it so it doesn't appear
> in Netwrok Connections and I can't set up my network!
>
> Sense my frustration yet?
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Do I detect a thread here, lotsa people seem to be
>>updating to XP SP2 and then start losing things like
>>soundcards, lan ports, printers, scanners, drives,
>>removable drives
>>
>>Is it me - am I paranoid or has MS screwed it up
>>completely???
>>
>>Hugh
>>.
>>

 

[xfile]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi:

Just a thought. One of my home systems using Asus P4P800 with onboard LAN,
which according to technician, the LAN chip has never failed even when some
MBs are dead.

Well, it just happened a few days after I installed SP2 and switched MB with
another system without any reasons. BIOS can detect but Win XP cannot, and
there is no such green light on after the system boot.

So I just sent it back to Asus for a complete check up. Could it be also a
MB problem for your case?

Anyway, just a thought.

Good luck.

--
Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
around.
"Hugh" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
???????:25f001c49f46$e0d46700$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Well I certainly touched a few nerves there!!
>
> I like to think I am very careful: Norton firewall and
> AV, update all the time from Windows update, regularly
> use AdAware and SpyBot, back up my data, including
> mailboxes and address books, If you don't believe the
> last I can show you the DVDs!
>
> To be doubly sure, because I had a hardware problem prior
> to it (power supply died and MoBo was rather ancient)I
> installed the new hardware (ASUS MoBO - A7N8X with an
> Athlon 2400XP processor 512 mb RAM) and then I went for a
> completely clean install of XP (reformatted HD), updated
> as required by the Windows Update site and then
> downloaded SP2. So apart from the aforementioned Norton
> there was nothing on the HD apart from Win XP.
>
> I posted the below on the newsgroup too and then read
> other people's posts about probs they were having.
>
> Still can't see the WinXP supported (yes I looked at all
> the SP2 documentation on the site and checked
> compatablities) AC97 sound chip nor the on board RJ45
> 10/100 Ethernet port. Made sure I got the latest drivers
> from Windows etc. My BIOS reports both chips but Win XP
> does not see them.
>
> So I installed a stand alone PCI LAN Card, having first
> disabled the RJ45 on-board in BIOS, WInXP sees it,
> installs drivers and then "hides" it so it doesn't appear
> in Netwrok Connections and I can't set up my network!
>
> Sense my frustration yet?
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Do I detect a thread here, lotsa people seem to be
>>updating to XP SP2 and then start losing things like
>>soundcards, lan ports, printers, scanners, drives,
>>removable drives
>>
>>Is it me - am I paranoid or has MS screwed it up
>>completely???
>>
>>Hugh
>>.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On these and other forums there have been many reports of SP-2 failing
specifically related to spyware etc.
The run one of the spyware killers and the problem goes away.
I for one do not keep track of the specifics because it seems so
obvious and there is no point.

Whether you accept it or not spyware and other malware does cause
problems for SP-2.
The computer needs to be clean and running properly if updates,
especially Service Packs are expected to install.
Even then there are an almost limitless list of other things to cause
problems.

"The FACT is that this is all mindless parroting on the part of people
who were *fortunate* enough to have a successful (so far) installation
and are either too dumb, too lazy or too biased to see that there are
people out there who are getting their butts kicked by SP2 for no good
reason."
Most of those with successful SP-2 installations are not just
"*fortunate*", they planned ahead to prepare their computer.
This usually included checking for spyware and other malware.
I do not really consider myself fortunate that SP-2 installed, I
expected it because I planned for it.
But I was also prepared if something did go wrong.
It is also not always "mindless parroting" as you suggest.
It is a fact I have seen almost countless times.
"...no good reason." Spyware, malware and other problems IS a good
reason for an installation failure, not just for Service Packs but for
anything.

"People need to be smart enough to realize that one of the easiest
ways for MS to shirk responsibility is to blame problems on a nebulous
but sinister-sounding source."
Are you suggesting spyware and other malware does not cause problems?
Yes, it is apparent from this post of yours.
What is wrong with "People need to be smart enough to maintain their
computers"
Do you think Microsoft should do it all because the people are
incapable?
It sounds like it.
I for one think they are smart, but some need to first learn what
needs to be done.

You are free to allow spyware and other malware on your computer and
wonder why there are performance and other issues.
While I know what it can do and take efforts to keep it off.
My issues are minimal and Service Packs seem to always go in
flawlessly for me.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Herb Fritatta" <Herb@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10l1lcol9ks3191@corp.supernews.com...
> Again, I might be barking up the wrong tree with you, but there's a
> valid point here. First, I asked for references regarding any
> specific piece of ad-or-spyware that is known to conflict with SP2
> and you responded with a link to mostly irrelevant mass-market AP
> story. You and I both can cite post after post after post, from
> bright people and obvious dopes, that accuse users of having systems
> full of malware and adware when an SP2 install goes south. The FACT
> is that this is all mindless parroting on the part of people who
> were *fortunate* enough to have a successful (so far) installation
> and are either too dumb, too lazy or too biased to see that there
> are people out there who are getting their butts kicked by SP2 for
> no good reason. And the reason that SP2 is necessary is that the
> original product was full of holes to begin with.
> No, you can't point me with any spyware or adware that's known to
> conflict with SP2 because none has been identified. People need to
> be smart enough to realize that one of the easiest ways for MS to
> shirk responsibility is to blame problems on a nebulous but
> sinister-sounding source. Problems with SP2? Your fault, probably,
> or as I said in an earlier post, I fu*#$ed up--I trusted them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:30:04 -0500, Herb Fritatta <Herb@nospam.com>

>No, you can't point me with any spyware or adware that's known to
>conflict with SP2 because none has been identified.

False. Go through MS's "front door" on SP2, and in the "before you
install SP2" section, there's a link for specific checks.

Follow that, and it will mention two issues known to kill SP2
installation; Prescott vs. SP2, and a particular commercial malware
(referred to as "unwanted software") that is known to crash SP2 .

I'm sure that's not the only malware that breaks SP2, and there may be
others that are known as well. But as that one is so "known" that
even MS singles it out; enough to refute your assertion ;-)



>-------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
"I think it's time we took our
friendship to the next level"
'What, gender roles and abuse?'
>-------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[xfile]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hi:

Just for everyone's information:


http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,96046,00.html?nlid=OS

(1) Symantec: Viruses Aimed At Microsoft Rise Sharply - Nearly 5,000 new
Windows viruses and worms were documented in the first half of 2004, up from
about 1,000 in the same period a year earlier, according to computer
security firm Symantec.

(2) More importantly, "Symantec also said it expects more viruses and worms
to be written to attack systems that run on the Linux operating system and
handheld devices as they become more widely used." -- This is similar to
what I've shared my thoughts before.

Not a Microsoft fan and as said before and to be fair, it might not just
MS's problem alone and it's a problem for all users and IT professionals.

Live with the fact and stop complaining.



--
Business executive who believes technology but don't want to be messed
around.

"Hugh" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com>
???????:338f01c49e88$f8a2dba0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> Do I detect a thread here, lotsa people seem to be
> updating to XP SP2 and then start losing things like
> soundcards, lan ports, printers, scanners, drives,
> removable drives
>
> Is it me - am I paranoid or has MS screwed it up
> completely???
>
> Hugh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Herb;
> I see your requests as ludicrous since the nature and purpose of
> spyware is often against good order for a computer.
>
> You are free to search the newsgroups because the specifics are there.
> But the issue is so obvious there is no reason for many of us to keep
> track of which spyware, malware etc causes which issues.
> Spyware and other malware needs to be gone not just for Service Pack
> installation but more importantly for safe computing.
> The fact I have seen some and Shenan has seen some is enough for us
> and others to suggest the computer be cleaned of all that garbage.
> For me to suggest only removing the ones I have personally verified
> cause issues with SP-2 would be giving only a fraction of necessary
> information.
>
> If you want an actual list, you could probably start here and get
> them:
> http://spybot.eon.net.au/en/index.html
> http://www.lavasoft.de/
> Somewhere on those links may be specifics including the damage they
> cause.
>
> Lastly your need to insult others shows us something of your own
> character.
> If you had a point it was lost when your feeble need for insults
> overshadowed you desire for facts.
>

You've made yourself a prime target for insults through your own dogged
and nonsensical defenses of the indefensible. Do you think me so stupid
as to not realize what the "mal" in "malware" means? You keep trying to
change the subject, which is a classic strategy for someone who has
proposed a lame argument and refuses to admit it. We're not talking
about whether or not spyware and adware is, in general, a bad thing. You
and others have claimed that people who have been screwed by SP2 must
have computers riddled with spyware and adware, and that if we had been
more careful, nothing bad would have happened. I say "bullsh*#," and
ask you or anyone else to point to ONE piece of adware or spyware that
is unequivocally KNOWN to conflict with SP2 installation or performance.
You can't do it. End of story.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I never suggested anyone is stupid, that is your idea.
You claim "You keep trying to change the subject"?
Really?
How?
While you put meaning in my post that I never said.
"...claimed that people who have been screwed by SP2 must have
computers riddled with spyware and adware, and that if we had been
more careful, nothing bad would have happened."
Where did I say that?
Look hard and long because you will probably never find it.
I never suggested eliminating that garbage will cause "nothing bad
would have happened".
However I have stated many times something to the effect that
preparing the computer to include eliminating spyware will help for a
trouble-free installation of SP-2.
If you read that as you stated above, you may have a reading
comprehension problem.
Or you may be simply confusing my posts with someone else's...again,
your problem.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Herb Fritatta" <Herb@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10l6kfe6v939ia4@corp.supernews.com...
> You've made yourself a prime target for insults through your own
> dogged and nonsensical defenses of the indefensible. Do you think me
> so stupid as to not realize what the "mal" in "malware" means? You
> keep trying to change the subject, which is a classic strategy for
> someone who has proposed a lame argument and refuses to admit it.
> We're not talking about whether or not spyware and adware is, in
> general, a bad thing. You and others have claimed that people who
> have been screwed by SP2 must have computers riddled with spyware
> and adware, and that if we had been more careful, nothing bad would
> have happened. I say "bullsh*#," and ask you or anyone else to
> point to ONE piece of adware or spyware that is unequivocally KNOWN
> to conflict with SP2 installation or performance. You can't do it.
> End of story.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Herb Fritatta wrote:
> So MS is investigating, and there "might be" a direct conflict, and
> your links went nowhere I hadn't already been; what's your point,
> vis-a-vis the original question?


If I am not mistaken, the original "question" (if you want to call it that)
was from "Hugh" and is quoted below (in reference to SP2):

"Is it me - am I paranoid or has MS screwed it up completely???"

And I believe that has been answered in various threads and by common sense.
MS could not have screwed it up "completely" or there would be no argument.
If they had screwed it up "completely", there would be no working machine,
no one saying "it worked for me" at all.

That doesn't mean the OP is paranoid, necessarily - but it does allow one to
answer the question simply (on an overall basis) with "No - MS did not screw
up completely - there are unique cases where SP2 does not work - period.
The reasons are varied for this - so yes, it could be 'just you'."

Now, perhaps you meant your original question - and I will preclude this
with a "I am surprised to see a particular "adware" identified so bluntly" -
presented in the quote below:

"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?"

And I have to concede, this MS article does categorically identify a
particular piece of adware which is known to conflict with SP2.

Now hold on - I did agree with you at first - a lot of "wishy-washy
language" is present in the given article:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=885523

"This problem may occur.."
"Microsoft is investigating reports of a compatibility issue.."
"T.V. Media is a third-party advertising program that you may not want to
continue running."

Yep - wishy-washy, uncertain, inconclusive even. But it gave me something
to hold on to and search with. Primarily "T.V. Media" as a specified adware
application. So I searched. This is what I found.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=885627

Now they still use the obligatory "The problem may occur if one or more of
the following conditions are true:" statements. However, I cannot say I
would not put that phrase in front of everything I said if I too had a large
crew of legal advisors that had to approve what I posted every time. What a
pain.

However, it did seem more confident in their presentation of the "T.V.
Media" adware than in the previous article.

"A third-party advertising program that is named T.V. Media is installed on
your computer. (T.V. Media is from Total Velocity Corporation.) To help you
avoid a failed Windows XP SP2 installation from Windows Update or from
Automatic Updates, we have temporarily blocked the download of Windows XP
SP2 to computers that have T.V. Media installed."

"Microsoft has recently discovered a compatibility issue between Windows XP
SP2 installation and a third-party advertising program that is named T.V.
Media."

"If you want to install Windows XP SP2, you must completely remove T.V.
Media from your system. The simplest way to remove T.V. Media is to use a
third-party tool that removes unwanted software. After you remove T.V.
Media, Windows XP SP2 will be available to install from Windows Update or
from Automatic Updates."

The article does go into some generalities on how to remove it and that they
recommend using this software to clean up anyway, but they seem vehement
about killing this "T.V. Media" adware in "Method 3" of this article.

I still agree that *if* there is anyone saying that everyone who is having
trouble installing SP2 wouldn't have this trouble if they cleaned their
system of spyware - they are wrong. However, I also have decided that this
article does, in fact, cover a particular piece of adware that causes so
much trouble with the installation of SP2, Microsoft themselves have
basically blocked people from getting SP2 unless it is cleaned from their
system first.

In my searches, I also found Microsoft has even created their own tool to
help remove this particular piece of adware.

Adware T.V. Media Program Removal Tool
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=886590

Download page for the above tool:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=f94e8b27-b656-45cd-9668-73134a18231b&displaylang=en
(Short link: http://snipurl.com/99jw )

And again - no wishy-washy language here.

"This adware interferes with successful installation of Windows XP Service
Pack 2."


Hope that settles this issue - which has gone on far too long for something
so insignificant in my opinion. *If* someone is giving false advice (saying
that the reason most cannot install SP2 is strictly spyware/adware) - they
are wrong. *If* someone wants a specific example of adware that causes
trouble when trying to install SP2 - this response gives it to them. *If*
someone believes someone with a with a properly maintained system should not
have trouble installing SP2 - I believe they may be incorrect - there will
be systems out there that do not upgrade properly to SP2 for a variety of
reasons unrelated to a properly maintained system. Can these problems be
corrected as well without the end-user spending money - that remains to be
seen.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Herb Fritatta wrote:
>
>>So MS is investigating, and there "might be" a direct conflict, and
>>your links went nowhere I hadn't already been; what's your point,
>>vis-a-vis the original question?
>
>
>
> If I am not mistaken, the original "question" (if you want to call it that)
> was from "Hugh" and is quoted below (in reference to SP2):
>
> "Is it me - am I paranoid or has MS screwed it up completely???"
>
> And I believe that has been answered in various threads and by common sense.
> MS could not have screwed it up "completely" or there would be no argument.
> If they had screwed it up "completely", there would be no working machine,
> no one saying "it worked for me" at all.
>
> That doesn't mean the OP is paranoid, necessarily - but it does allow one to
> answer the question simply (on an overall basis) with "No - MS did not screw
> up completely - there are unique cases where SP2 does not work - period.
> The reasons are varied for this - so yes, it could be 'just you'."
>
> Now, perhaps you meant your original question - and I will preclude this
> with a "I am surprised to see a particular "adware" identified so bluntly" -
> presented in the quote below:
>
> "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?"
>
> And I have to concede, this MS article does categorically identify a
> particular piece of adware which is known to conflict with SP2.
>
> Now hold on - I did agree with you at first - a lot of "wishy-washy
> language" is present in the given article:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=885523
>
> "This problem may occur.."
> "Microsoft is investigating reports of a compatibility issue.."
> "T.V. Media is a third-party advertising program that you may not want to
> continue running."
>
> Yep - wishy-washy, uncertain, inconclusive even. But it gave me something
> to hold on to and search with. Primarily "T.V. Media" as a specified adware
> application. So I searched. This is what I found.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=885627
>
> Now they still use the obligatory "The problem may occur if one or more of
> the following conditions are true:" statements. However, I cannot say I
> would not put that phrase in front of everything I said if I too had a large
> crew of legal advisors that had to approve what I posted every time. What a
> pain.
>
> However, it did seem more confident in their presentation of the "T.V.
> Media" adware than in the previous article.
>
> "A third-party advertising program that is named T.V. Media is installed on
> your computer. (T.V. Media is from Total Velocity Corporation.) To help you
> avoid a failed Windows XP SP2 installation from Windows Update or from
> Automatic Updates, we have temporarily blocked the download of Windows XP
> SP2 to computers that have T.V. Media installed."
>
> "Microsoft has recently discovered a compatibility issue between Windows XP
> SP2 installation and a third-party advertising program that is named T.V.
> Media."
>
> "If you want to install Windows XP SP2, you must completely remove T.V.
> Media from your system. The simplest way to remove T.V. Media is to use a
> third-party tool that removes unwanted software. After you remove T.V.
> Media, Windows XP SP2 will be available to install from Windows Update or
> from Automatic Updates."
>
> The article does go into some generalities on how to remove it and that they
> recommend using this software to clean up anyway, but they seem vehement
> about killing this "T.V. Media" adware in "Method 3" of this article.
>
> I still agree that *if* there is anyone saying that everyone who is having
> trouble installing SP2 wouldn't have this trouble if they cleaned their
> system of spyware - they are wrong. However, I also have decided that this
> article does, in fact, cover a particular piece of adware that causes so
> much trouble with the installation of SP2, Microsoft themselves have
> basically blocked people from getting SP2 unless it is cleaned from their
> system first.
>
> In my searches, I also found Microsoft has even created their own tool to
> help remove this particular piece of adware.
>
> Adware T.V. Media Program Removal Tool
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=886590
>
> Download page for the above tool:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=f94e8b27-b656-45cd-9668-73134a18231b&displaylang=en
> (Short link: http://snipurl.com/99jw )
>
> And again - no wishy-washy language here.
>
> "This adware interferes with successful installation of Windows XP Service
> Pack 2."
>
>
> Hope that settles this issue - which has gone on far too long for something
> so insignificant in my opinion. *If* someone is giving false advice (saying
> that the reason most cannot install SP2 is strictly spyware/adware) - they
> are wrong. *If* someone wants a specific example of adware that causes
> trouble when trying to install SP2 - this response gives it to them. *If*
> someone believes someone with a with a properly maintained system should not
> have trouble installing SP2 - I believe they may be incorrect - there will
> be systems out there that do not upgrade properly to SP2 for a variety of
> reasons unrelated to a properly maintained system. Can these problems be
> corrected as well without the end-user spending money - that remains to be
> seen.
>

I agree completely. My whole point in extending this discussion was that
there are far too many parrots in these newsgroups who have no idea what
they're talking about but don't let that stop them from offering advice
and criticism. A few of these do so with the MS imprimatur,
unfortunately. The links you uncovered are very well buried, which
seems to be a general flaw in the MS support site, but I salute you for
unearthing them.