I hate w2k sp1!

[blstriker]

This experience has taught me that if something ain't broke, don't fix it!

I upgraded my win2k advanced server with sp1 to plug up any security problems. Boy I wish I hadn't done that.

IE 5.0 keeps on crashing now and my cgi bbs problem won't display pages properly. I had to hose everything and then reinstall the OS, IIS 5.0 and then my data. Wasted a whole day.

I hate w2k sp1

If your computer is working fine (like mine was) don't bother with it.

 

[angel1610]

I told everybody about that but they don't listen in the office here there are speaking about a sp1 fix, wich i told the forum that sp1 was just a some sort of beta version but noooooo the experts on this forum tells me that, that's not thrue as if i didn't know.
Mario
Microsoft MCSE help desk
Missisauga, Ont. Canada
There you go guys.
Coming from the source itself.
Don't worry they don't give us nothing, just our pays and that's it.

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

Just rememeber that if you're using the 'evaluation' version...installing service pack 1 will disable it.

You have to have the full retail version OS to take advantage of it.

 

[Webaholic]

'evaluation'

I love it

 

[BigToque]

SP1 has been an awesome addition to my system. Not a single hitch so far. My system seems more responsive too.

 

[Elledan]

I'm just about to install Win2k Pro and I was wondering whether I should install SP1 too. I thought I should do it, but now I'm not so sure...
It seems like Russian Roulette: sometimes you're out of luck

 

[Thegonagle]

I just started using Win2K about a week ago and now that I have it up and running, it's great, handling multi-tasking and internet apps far better than Win 98 (1st ed.). I installed SP1 as soon as my dial-up was working (before installing any software) and I've had absolutely no problems.

 

[Spiff]

this should be in a FAQ somewhere... damn i've said this so often.

Any SP for an OS (platform doesn't matter) may contain hundreds of fixes, patches, updates that either correct known bugs or add more ceomprehensive functionality to existing processes. For most people, particularly home users, only one or two of these fixes may apply to their systems. Keep in mind that these "fixes" are either for those issues that internal testing has discovered or are due to IT professionals working with the OS developer to resolve a problem with their "unique" environment.

Because of this I usually recommend caution in installing a SP. A SP upgrade is a very significant change to your system, often with no backout or recovery other than to reinstall. MS and likely other developers publish on the web, a list of all fixes contained in a SP. If you are contemplating an install, then go to their web site and look to see if there is any reason for you to install the SP.

There is something else that should be pointed out. Msot SP installations go fairly smooth, in that they don't blow up your system. However, it has been my experience that there will always be someone who has a problem with the SP install and because of this they will claim "don't install or it your system will die". This is a blanket statement that simply isn't accurate.

There are also those that like to point out that "MS is already working on the next SP to fix the problems of the prior". This is not accurate either. Every OS developer has SP's (service packs) or CSD's (Corrective Service Disks) or Point Releases for their products. I don't know the schedule of the others, but in the case of MS, they claim to try for quarterly releases of SP's. So in reality, they are always working on putting out the next release.

oh btw... the SP is not in beta, it was released several weeks ago, if not months.

 

[LocutusX]

SP1 works great for me. I think the only known "problem" for the average user is that most personal firewall software ceases to work. For someone like me, with a dedicated Linux firewall, that didn't bother me at all.

 

[cparker]

I installed sp1 after having made a diskimage backup of the system prior to the sp1 install. After the installation it seemed that I had more disk activity during idle periods and my hard disk got noisier, it seemed to be more activity than the built in disk cache could handle without actually doing reads/writes off the disk vs the cache. I found this annoying so I just reinstalled the image and all is well. I'll probably try the sp1 again sometime after I install a hard disk with a larger cache. Didn't seem to be any other problems with sp1 than that. But even without sp1 w2k is a pleasure. If you are thinking about sp1 I'd strongly recommend a backup, preferably a disk image type one.

 

[Skippy]

Why didnt just uninstall it after you started having problems?

 

[NFS4]

No problems for me after installing SP1

 

[Evil69er]

I installed win2k about 3 weeks ago, and it's been a blast to use and a pleasure to play games in

Then I got the new service pack 1, oh god...
what a piece of crap, now half my games don't work.
I receive an error like (for Half-Life) "Hl.exe requires Service Pack 3 or higher"

thanks alot windowsupdate, grrr....
im a Half-Life fan, how do I uninstall this piece of crap? or reinstall Service Pack 3?

thx for any info you give

 

[Evil69er]

(sp1 not good for you? try sp1 + sp3)

I answered my own problems, cuz I got sick of waiting for a reply
Here's what I did :

Installed Service Pack 1, had problems with some apps and games...
So I stuck in the Windows 2000 professional cd and chose "upgrade from current windows version"

it sounds weird, but I upgraded to win2k pro from win2k pro, hehe

After you reinstall it, some drivers you'll have to reinstall, like a graphics card.
And now you have SERVICE PACK 3 and SERVICE PACK 1 on your system.

I thought to myself "both must interfere with one another"
but, i've tried almost every app and game i have, they're all fine.
scanners, printers, sound, video, all in check.

also : i had linux installed in a dual boot, i was afraid it might overwrite the linuxboot (grub)

It didn't, it's still there with my option of linux/win2k

so, im happy again.

If you have problems with SP1, try what I did, it worked great for me!

(sp1 not good for you? try sp1 + sp3)

 

[Spiff]

are you on crack?

Win2K SP1 was only just released a month or two or three ago. there is not Win2K SP2 let alone a Win2K SP3

 

[Evil69er]

SP3 is built into the win2k pro Cd installation.
You wanna argue with that? It says so right on the windows site.
and of coarse theirs an SP3, duh!
alot of games require it, and it's what we all used before this stupid SP1

it went from sp1, to sp2 to sp3 to sp4 then back to sp1 with this new piece of junk.

 

[LocutusX]

Evil69er, I think you need to get off the crack. There is no Service Pack 3 for Windows 2000.

I think you might be confusing Windows NT for Windows 2000.

 

[owensdj]

Evil69er, you are a very confused person. There is only a Service Pack 1 for Windows 2000. No SP2 and certainly NO SP3. I think you are getting Windows 2000 and NT 4.0 confused. NT 4.0 has Service Packs all the way up to SP6.

Sounds like you upgraded from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, not from "win2k pro from win2k pro" as you seem to think. Maybe that's why you're so confused. Evil69er, you are running Windows 2000 Professional now, not NT 4.0, so DO NOT try to install ANY NT 4.0 Service Packs.

 

[Evil69er]

I installed workstation nt 4.0 service pack 3 onto win2k pro.
If it works, why not do it?

I did get the nt and 2000 mixed up, sorry about the confusion.
but i still have a service pack 3 installed on win2k.

 

[owensdj]

Evil69er, are you sure you installed NT 4.0's Service Pack 3 onto Windows 2000? I'd be surprised if it even let you do that. I'd be even more surprised if Windows 2000 still booted afterward.

In one of your posts, it sounded like you installed NT 4.0's Service Pack 3 on your NT 4.0 system and then upgraded to Windows 2000. You can definately do that.

 

[LocutusX]

It's possible that when he ran the SP3 for NT4 (which is extremely OUT OF DATE might I add) that the installer just "ran" but didn't actually install any of the SP3 files into the \WINNT\SYSTEM32 directory, because it had checked already and discovered the newer files already there. Or something like that.

 

[Evil69er]

I originally had win2k pro installed. Never Nt, i don't own it.
Everything was fine, half-life worked.
I then upgraded win2k pro to SP1. Then Half-life says "hl.exe requires sp3 or higher to run"

so, doesn't that assume that i had sp3 or higher before i got the new sp1? Because the half-life worked before (which needs 3)

After getting mad at not being able to play Half-Life, I upgraded win2k pro from the win2k pro cd, yes, it let me do that.

All my files stayed, i didn't lose anything, and after it all, I still had the SP1 installed, but I also had the ones back that i had lost before. I assume they were SP3's or higher because Half-Life works with them installed alone, and with "them" + "the new sp1"

What other rationale can explain what was used before sp1?
The game indicated sp3, so that's what I assumed I was on prior to new sp1.

so, that's all the information concerning this issue.
Now , you all tell me that I didn't have sp3 installed, and I didn't add it when I upgraded win2k from win2k.
If so, what did I add on that made the game recognize an sp3 and higher value?

answer that one (if you can comprehend what im saying here)

 

[Skippy]

Riiiiight. Ok.

 

[Shukaido]

<< Now , you all tell me that I didn't have sp3 installed, and I didn't add it when I upgraded win2k from win2k.
If so, what did I add on that made the game recognize an sp3 and higher value? >>



Sierra supports Half-Life for use with NT4 SP3 and later. In all likelihood, Half-Life is confusing your Win2000 installation for NT4.

You installed Win2000. Half-Life worked, mistaking your Win2000 for NT4. Everyone's happy.

You installed Win2000 SP1. Something has changed. One of Half-Life's OS or driver checks fails, but it mistakenly thinks that the reason it failed was because it's being asked to run on a machine with NT4 SP2, NT4 SP1, or just NT4.

You do the re-install from the Win2000 CD and it downgrades some components back to their pre-SP1 state. Half-Life works again.

I think that's a perfectly plausible explanation.

No, there really is no SP2 or SP3 for Win2000.

 

[Evil69er]

That's a pretty good theory shuk, and i know that theirs no win2k sp2 and sp3, that's why this is all confusing.

So, what you're saying is that an nt service pack comes installed with the windows 2000 professional cd?