Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--2/8/01

Anyone can be a critic - and I can't imagine creating a product that would be turned over to everyone in the world and expected to work flawlessly. I myself am very greatful for each FREE service pack Microsoft posts - not because they are free (because they should cost nothing but our time), but because they generally eliminate problems most of us haven't even experienced yet.

The power of Office 2000 (especially Professional) is awesome and it will always amaze me how much Microsoft gets right the first time. And yes - I'll likely get pissed sometime in the future when I run into some as yet unresolved problem with a Microsoft product - but I for one choose to quietly fix my problems whith what I have found as excellant technical support and free downloads.

Just one opinion!

I have been shying away from MS SP lately due to the way the office 2k stuff is going down.

a service pack should do 1 thing and one thing only, install fixes to problems, and save off the old stuff so you can put things back the way it was before the SP, period. no other fancy things, no other new features, just fix the problem and give a way to get back. if MS wants to add stuff, put it in some other package.
but since MS has integrated so much stuff into the o/s and apps, this is probably harder and harder to do for them. i guess this is a way to ensure you have as much market share as you can.

I personally have always been the one who waits a little while before applying any service pack, form Microsoft or not. I believe that one of the main reasons MS products and service packs have so many bugs in them is because so many people use these products. Other products have similer problems as well but since not as many people use them, probably most of the bugs go unnoticed. There is no such thing as bug free software out there. Or at least the ones which do some productive work. :-)
I am not an All MS shop, but face it, their products do work well together. I think people should not just get any and every SP and install it in production, test it in your own environment first then apply it to production. If you can't afford a test lab, then wait and see what the big boys find before you go and start applying any SP. Just my $0.02

Hi Alls
We have to agree that MS Office is the best product of its kind in the market.
We all agree that there is no bug-free software.
I agree with the opinion that a Service pack should fix the problems found and the idea of Updates with new features is OK.
Let's be honest. MS has many detractors but we cannot deny that its products are of high standard and the support and free updates and fixes make that people give their acceptance to Microsoft software.
Yes, Yes there are some commercial economical and even political aspects that we can discuss and we will not all agree.
It's my opinion anyway and I respect others'
Regards

I look VERY closely at what is "fixed" in service packs before I bother. Microsoft - at least the Office team - has a habit of being VERY arrogant when it comes to how service packs are handled. Example - Office 2000 SR2 (or is that SP2??). If you are an Outlook user, you probably want to avoid this. A non-optional component is the security "fix" where you can no longer access most file types that can contain executable code. Of course, in their arrogance, the Office team saw fit to not include.DOC in the list if file types to be blocked, even though more viruses are spread that way than any other! Yet they will block a URL! Geezzz... And to otp it off, the attachments are still there taking up disk space - you just can't access them.
But back to Windows. I trust service packs there much more. but I still think it is worthwhile to assess whether or not what is fixed makes sense for you. In a corporate environment, I would generally say it is a good idea to apply OS service packs - after they have been out for a month or two and any problems have surfaced.

We usually get all serice packs but don't install them unless we need them for a particular problem. If the system is working fine without the SP the workstation is left alone. We only deliver the service pack to the workstations that need it.

Well I like to sit back a little and let people that are having real problem issues to install and receive feed back! When I do begin installing, of course I keep it locally for as long as possible. Its easier to fix and deal with if its here in my own office and the (if possible) IT department.
MS does not do a bad job when yopu consider the many types of hardware and many ways companies apply applications and O/S software. Yes 2000 is a very powerfull system which can be configure so many different ways and to hardware. I consider it a plus that they address the issues!!!!
Rick Otto

As a rule, I never, ever want to be the first person installing an update. I always wait 4-6 weeks after an update is released before I will consider installing it. If there are reported problem that will affect my systems, then in all likely hood, I will not install the update.

I will not install Office 2000-SP2 at all. I do not have any problems with Office, so if it ain't broken, I'm not going to fix it.

Don

Would I install SP2? Absolutely not.
Is this a change in my SOP RE: MS's service packs? Absolutely not.

I have always been the type to wait until at least a year before upgrading or trying new software...less bugs and, usually, less money for the same product. I don't even _have_ Office 2000 yet - at home or at work - but I do plan to purchase it sometime this year.

As for SP2, I'll probably get a listing of what's included and grab everything I can on a piecemeal basis: I don't have problems with SP's including new features nor do I have problems with SP's deactivating beta-bugs which have been "included" in the production build as "undocumented features".

What I do have a problem with is SP2's draconian (thanks,Woody) approach to Outlook. Unless MS puts out a SP for Office Smegg^10 - or whatever they end up calling the next version - which removes the Outlook security "enhancement" borrowed from Office 2k SP2, I will never buy another version of Office.MS needs to at least fake understanding that we, their users, _do_ have some brains.

If its not broken, don?t fix it. That is the philosophy we follow. We only use Service Packs if they are critical to the correct functioning of the systems, especially regarding security issues. So the approach to other and new service packs stays the same, and usually the hotfixes suffice.

TEST TEST TEST! All pc configurations are not the same! our group does use pretty much the same hardware, and there is a standard software package that is rolled out. Our IT deparment will use our standard roll out for the desktop, and take a test machine and install it right away. If the install goes well then we will test it as much as reasonably possible. The trick here is get an end user on the machine and see what they do. If the testing goes well then we will deploy the sp via sms. However you can count on an end users having additional software installed, and somthing some where is going to blow up. be prepared to roll back a machine or two.

I learned the hard way NOT to install ANY patch, service pack or fix provided by Microsoft on any operating system UNLESS ALL the following criteria were met:
1. Am I currently experiencing the problem that this item fixes?
2. What other damage will result as a consequence of applying this patch (fixing a known problem)?
3. Is there a way I can duplicate the problem system (or machine)and thoroughly test the fix before going live?
4. What have other people experienced with this patch on other configurations of applications?
I do not want to sound as if I am Bill Bashing but it has been my experience that with the millions of lines of code that bloatware (a.k.a. Microsoft)is putting into every application, they cannot test every scenario. Sometimes I have to bite the bullet and take whatever happens to fix a KNOWN problem for my clients.

If you have O2K on a network you should be using a central network installation. In this case you will need to update this in isolation with the new version. Then you can point those user who really need the upgrade to that new source path and slowly roll out the new version.
Only when every machine is updated can you remove the SP1 installation folders. This could be a good oportunity to assess your network bandwidth and service your servers.

I installed SR2 and have had no problems.
I am finding more of the irritations of Office 2000 are gone. Many of my clients are having Office 2000 problems but refuse to have any service packs installed. The only problem I encountered was with SR1 and another program which used the same dll files. It would no longer run on my computer. Microsoft updated these dll files.

I am going to be very careful about when and if I install the service pack. I installed service pack 1, and my machine has not worked correctly since. I still can not get popups, can not search for files, can not save or print web pages (though I get around saving them by viewing the source and saving that...) and explorer.exe still crashes every once in a while. Thankfully, not every 15-20 minutes like it did earlier. If Microsoft is going to release a service pack, they should do their best to ensure that it is compatible w/all of the software that they support. As this has not been the case in my experience, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Clarification: I would install it to this machine in the hopes it would solve some of the problems that I have been having since SP1, but in another day I am getting my machine replaced with one that works correctly. Due to the nature of my work, I can not afford the two-day down time that is required to completely reinstall and set up the machine that my two co-workers with similar problems had experienced.

Ever since service pack 2 for NT 4.0 blew up the O/S on my server, I have carefully applied the service packs from microsoft on a test machine first. Do you recall MS-DOS 4.0 quickly followed by MS-DOS 4.01 and the reluctance of leaving 3.66 for 4.01? Never ever trust Microsoft to deliver the impossible perfect O/S or software application. I know of no developer or company that can produce 100% error free software or O/S. the rule is to test, test and then test some more.

The big deal with Service Packs is the fact that they are just band aids for a larger problem. Generally, the approach I take is to wait a couple of weeks to install the latest SPs. For the duration of those weeks I check MSDN to make sure other issues haven't arisen since the SP was released.
Of course, there is the also the issue that unless there is a significant reason to install the SP, why do it? I research the exact reason for the SP prior to installing it because it may not even effect my machines, so why take the chance of bandaging up something that could cause an explosion.

I am a newbie to the Administrative world. I have only worked in the field for 1 year. I jumped the gun and installed Office SP2 and have regretted it ever since. Luckly my office does not revolve around sending and receiving certain files that Microsoft thought we no longer needed to recieve. Accually it blocked all of those jokes that people keep sending the Employees. Opps Sorry about that one. hehe But thats not the point I have a real time email sweep set up on my virus program to check for viruses. I have read several articles that have said, install the SP's and security fixes as soon as they come out so your system is more secure. Well since this incident I will test the SP's and what not on my own system only after I have done some research on what exactly I'm fixing. Thanks for some great info from all of you who have responded to this Challenge.

It is very simple. I wait to see what Woodies Office Watch (WOW) says. They do the testing, find all the snags, and let me know what the risk is to go or nogo. Leave it to the experts.

Web site
http://www.woodyswatch.com/

I usually give each SP about 1-2 months, to see what problems develop, before installing in a production environment.

I don't have an opinion on Office 2K specifically, since I took a look at it when it came out and saw very little to justify thecost of an upgrade from Office 97 SP2.

Good fortune,
Don

I have heard a lot of hullabalo of thumbs up / down on Office2K SP2.

Here is what I prepare and plan:
1. If the SP is available from MS, either on CD or thru download, I would get it asap. Then I will comb MS OFFICE2K site and gather all available "Readmes/Instructions", etc. about the SP. Cross-check the Readmes with the OS platform for additional info or precautions.
2. I will install it to a "guinea PC" and let it be used by somebody who runs OFFICE 2K apps. The guinea PC must have already all other apps as the rest of your company's PC.
3. Let this test phase run for at least 3 months and fully document the effects on the various apps or what are affected by the SP. 4. If there are additional patches from MS, then apply them.
4.From the assessment, decide whether or not applying the SP is a "growing acceptance" or "growing pain" on your users and/or yourself as the Admin.

Waiting for some months and "listening" from the community for the good, the bad and the ugly of the SP; may not be the best. Instead assess it from the context of your environment, users, and your ability to proact when you have applied the SP.

First of all, many people have said they would set up a test environment for a service pack. I wouldn't bother. As a subscriber to Woodyswatch emails, I already have the scoop. MS Office 2000 SR-2 contains the 'Melissa virus' patch, which until SR-2, was available as a single update. It has some good points, but, it will prevent users from receiving many types of attachments. You cannot turn it off, and if you install the standalone patch, you cannot uninstall it, you must uninstall Outlookand reinstall it to get rid of it. Nor can you choose just the parts of it you want use, it is an 'all or nothing' patch. If you maintain strict control over your companies PC's, this might be a good thing. But, many departments will need some ofthe filetypes prevented by the patch. Do you want to have to deal with help desk calls wanting to know why there Outlook is not working? Do you want to uninstall a service pack or Outlook just so users can recieve attachments they may need to do their job? And, what is to prevent users from getting these attachments via Internet based email (or other means)? With all this in mind, I say 'no way' to SR-2, unless a specific issue arises that makes it necessary to install it. Microsoft really dropped the ball on this one. Prior to MS Office SR-2, I did install service packs whenever available.

I agree with CTaylor about skipping Service Pack 2 for Office 2000. The "fixes" to the security in Outlook are just not worth the extra increase in help desk calls that would be generated. Other solutions exist, that don't prevent the users from doing their work, to help catch/eradicate viruses.

I also agree with some of the other posters that none of this has actually changed my Service Pack process. Unless it is absolutely critical I never install an SP when it first comes out. I follow several different Web sites/e-mail lists to see what problems other people have, and do testing on test boxes after that, before installing SPs.

Service Packs are not the problem; downloading them what with MS's active install is a pain in my land short-lived connects. Most MS packs contain bugs. But its easier to patch 5 and stike out on 2 than not patch at all. E.g. the Outlook security patch locks out .EXE files. Problem with workaround: send attachments as Zips. The *only* SP I have yet to apply is Win2K SP1 which (seems to) cause more harm than good.

Well....I don't have an answer to your question..only advice...If your dumb enough to run applications on a windows environment thats your problem..UNIX is the only way to go...It is the only OS that has the power to handle the memory and disk storage...There is not an NT piece of hardware that can remotely challenge IBM, HP or Sun hardware...

And mostly I can install patches address issues that I am currently experiencing...and to date I have yet to back out a recommended patch....

Have fun...I will take a guess No I would not install just wait and see...

I am definitely NOT a Microsoft hater. But it doesn't take that to hate Microsoft Office service packs / releases (are they ever going to use one terminology?).

Since Office 97 SR-1, every Office service release has required at least one tweak from Microsoft. This is not what I call quality control.

My company has been forced not to use Office 2000 SR-2 because of its mandatory inclusion of the Outlook security update. If Microsoft cared about its customers, it would have made that updatecustomizable.

I guess we just have to cross our fingers and hope that no major bugs appear from here on out in Office 2000, since every service release also shares the annoying quality of being dependent on you having installed previous ones.

Hi All,

When I apply a SP - I do it smartly, like I would any other change on the network, I test it on an isolated system/segment. This allows me to see if there is a potential problem with the SP and whether or not I want to continue to install the SP on the network systems.

In all, I've hardly had any problems with the SP's I've installed, and that's a damn good track record for anyone. But regardless - for anyone to just blindly install something onto their computer or network without testing it first.... well, that's just asking for trouble.

I applaud Microsoft for actively improving their products, and making the SR's (SP's) so readliy available, but they need to separate the Fixes from the Updates, and post each separatly. From what I understand, this is what their doing with W2K, sowhy not apply the same logic to other applications.

We were quite unpleased by the Outlook Security patch, and were very dissapointed that there was no way to administrate the lockdown of specific attachments, or unload the patch once it was installed. Since MS was aware of this issue when it was only a patch, why did they decide to include it in their SR??

I can understand that since MS is the king of the hill (and I do truely love their products), that they will be the likely target ofhackers and Virus makers. It only makes sense that they would work to close down the vulnerabilities that these people exploit, but they need to be a bit more user friendly in their approach.

I'll be much more cautious with SP's in the future (Unless they move to the W2K standards)

I'm possibly no different to many of the other Admins who have replyed to this. (But) Have you ever noticed there is always one user who seems to find problems faster than anyone else? (generaly experiences more of them as well) After the wait and see period. (no I don't go diving into water of unknown depth) This is the first person I upgrade! (providing it's not the GM's secretary!) This has two advantages. First, if there are problems it will happen fast. Second, if they occur it seems like nothing out of the ordinary has happened, and chances are you know the PC and the person well enough to get to the bottom of quickly. On a more general note all updates/bug-fixes need to be investigated prior to using them. With Microsoft there will normally be some changes that are good and some that you don't agree with. It is necessary to weigh them up and do what is best for your environment. I would appreciate a 2 horse race though, with known bug fixes seperated from feature enhancements. (enhancements?) Well I expect you get my drift. That's enough from me. (I'll get out the soap box next) Cheers, Mike...

I am currently the project lead for Microsoft O2K SR2 deployment to 2500 machines ranging in resources. We just completed testing on a group of 30 people and have found no problems. There are a couple of tricks to make this go smoothly. First, ifyou have to use the admin version, use it to update to a test server first (this updates the installation files), run tests from here doing the following: Create a login script that will make the machines perform a detect and repair on O2K. Beforeyou do this though, you must first update the registry using a login script or zen or any other program like it. I believe the key is HKeyLocalMachine->Programs->Microsoft->Uninstall (not sure, I am at home now and don't have the information on me,you can find it by searching for path name of the server that you installed from). Change the path of the server from where you installed from to the test server. Then export the key and deploy it to your test users. This will make O2k do a detect and repair from that point. This will update it to SP2. When you deploy to enterprise wide, just copy the installation folders and files from the test server to all of the servers that currently have the installation points. If this is not acceptable, just create a batch file that runs the non-admin version to the users, it takes a little bit longer but isn't as tricky (although I do like tricking Microsoft). We have had no complaints, however you should know that IE5.5 does not play well with O2K on Windows 2000 machines. It replaces a dll (vgx.dll) with a newer beta version of this dll. When O2K goes to do a detect and repair it errors out. The fix for it is to find someone who is using 5.0 and copy that dll and replace it on your machine, but make sure that you restart right away because the dll cache will find that there is an old version of it on the machine and will replace it. Hope I helped.

If there is a security patch, I will aplly it. As for the all in one SPs, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"!
Maybe this analogy can explain it better:
My car has a defective tire that can cause it to blow(ala Firestone) I will replace the tire. But, if someone in Alaska finds that they get better traction with brand A tires and I live in Florida using Brand B tires, should I switch the tires?

I have to agree with the majority of people and the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude on this. Unfortunately, I had a "broke" with Office 2K's outlook and was advised to download SP1. It didn't fix the problem I had (turned out to be an ISP problem) and blocked all the attachments.

A full removal of Office 2K Pro and re-installing didn't work as the attachments were still blocked (gee thanks MS!)

I am currently uninstalling again and will be hacking the reg to try and save my poor computer from receiving further verbal (and sometimes) physical abuse when it can't do what I want!

Why did MS introduce the security patch as a 'Take it or Take it' in SP1? Surely they realise how many people rely on e-mailing software patchesetc to customers?

Personally I will try to avoid service packs and when I do need them I think I'll install them on a friend's computer first, just to be safe!

This question was auto closed due to inactivity