Re: Windows XP SP3 Sows Havoc, Users Complain

On May 11, 5:04=A0pm, Mitch <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <a3da6384-f7f9-45cc-848b-0ce72f5e4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > My computer would only boot into safe mode after I installed SP3.
=
=A0 It
> > > > only took a few minutes with Google to find and apply the
solution:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > "If you booted into safe mode you can run "sc config intelppm
start=
=3D
> > > > disabled""
>
> > > > The above line is all it took to fix the problem for me.
>
> > > Oh, that's all?
>
> > That's all.
>
> That seems like a LOT; especially since you had to go find it from some
> other source, and especially when it may take several offered
> 'solutions' to get there.
> It's also a very unobvious bit of code. It's not like that code is so
> clear it could be used by someone knowing little; heck, there are
> plenty of people who don't know the first part.
>
> > > A few minutes of searching, probably several suggestions that do not
> > > help (or make it worse!), finding the one article that helps, then
> > > doing what that says?
>
> > You're wrong, as usual, =A0Mitch. =A0 I found the solution on the
first
> > try, and it worked immediately.
>
> How can I be wrong?

By fabricating false statements.

> I didn't make any statement of fact, Edwin.

I never accused you of stating facs, Dave.

> You said it took you a few minutes of searching.

Correct.

> I supposed that
> someone doing that kind of search may have to look for a while, too,
> and may find many fixes that do not work.

You insisted on saying that even though you had already been told I
found and applied the solution on the first try.   That made you
wrong.

> I supposed that because it is
> a common problem fixing computer issues.

You must be thinking of Macs.

> > > IT WAS AN OS PATCH -- it needs to work for everyone, every time,
> > > faultlessly. Every other perspective is making a compromise.
>
> > You should have read what I referenced, instead of snipping it. =A0
The
> > problem is being caused by vendor errors, not a problem with the
patch.
>
> The problem is caused by a system that installs different libraries for
> different processor, but still can't distinguish them well enough to
> load only the proper one. I read it.

You misread it.

> Consider this: if the OS could properly identify the processor,

The OS doesn't identify the processor, there is some utility that does
that.

> and
> load only the proper stuff, this kind of error wouldn't happen.

The files in question were not loaded by the installer, they were
already present on the machine.  And it's the installer utility that
installs files, not the OS.

>That is
> how some other systems work; it's not unreachable.

That's not how any system works.