Survey Shows Admins Avoiding SP2 492
bonch writes "Tom's Hardware Guide is running an article about Windows XP Service Pack 2 and its limited acceptance by IT administrators. AssetMetrix is cited in the article as reporting that fewer than 24% of over 136,000 Windows XP PCs in 251 North American corporations even had SP2 installed. THG goes on to describe the reasons given by admins and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of installing SP2."
I get a funny feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
Lazy / Time Consuming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Further more SP2 adds LOTS of functionality and changes the behaviour of Windows and thus is extremely likely to break things on a corp. setup.
So I am not at all shocked that network admins haven't all installed it yet.. But I bet you if you changed the survey to - "How many network admins are installing (Via Slipstream) SP2 on new installations?" you would get a very positive and different result.
They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows admins have a good reason to be a bit careful here. Windows Service Packs have a long tradition of making systems or applications no longer function. After getting burned a few times, you learn to be careful.
Security moanings (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not I (Score:1, Insightful)
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if Microsoft force you to upgrade to SP2 to reduce the number and chances of a compromised PC it's bad because they're forcing you.
If Microsoft don't force you to upgrade then it's bad because they're not being proactive enough in reducing the number and chances of a compromised PC.
Must be great to be a decision maker at Microsoft where whatever choices you take it won't be liked.
Bottom line (Score:5, Insightful)
When new programs come out that require SP2 (like the upcoming IE7), it will be too late to start thinking about an upgrade... If it breaks your 5-year-old applications, replace them.
If your internally-generated code isn't ready, fix it.
If you can't cope with the lame Window Firewall, RTFM to customize or disable it.
How long before the legal or finance departments need to use a business-critical Web site that requires IE7 for access?
Why not linux? I'll tell you why (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
PS you are a turd moneky.
Re:Nothing But Pity (Score:2, Insightful)
thanks for the pity but my fat paycheck will suffice for now
Windows creates jobs, if it all "just worked" with no need for updates ever etc. then most Admin's would be part-timers, you would install the machine and never see the customer again, not exactly good for any buisness that according to the "free market" is supposed to expand
viruses and malware on their own have created entire multi billion dollar industries engaged into defeating their effects, but conviently they just cant seem to eliminate the problem$
Re:SP2 is useless (Score:3, Insightful)
SP2 isn't useless, it is manditory, but a serious pig to apply in the corporate environment. You are short sighted to think otherwise.
Re:Simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
But, after a while and I had heard good things about it, in terms of doing a good/significantly better job with security, I thought I would look into it more.
When I went to download it, it recommended that I look here, to see if my manufacturer had anything to say. They did, and had a couple downloads before I upgraded, and a couple after. Everything works great.
Manufacturer Guidelines [microsoft.com]
Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why (Score:1, Insightful)
I am a windows admin and decided that I would set up a fedora box to play around with when I had some free time in the office - I managed to get it to do everything that I wanted - but it took time.. a long time....
when people buy computers they dont want to spend 10 hours setting it up to do what they want (home users now people) they want to open the box... set up the machine and install AOL9 on their ADSL connection and then surf the net or play UT04 online.
All the hacks etc which are required to do this on all* linux distros which I have tried makes it hard for your average Joe to switch to Linux..
I am sure that over time Linux will become more friendly to the home user but unless your a sysadmin the setup and config of all the hardware etc can be a nightmare.. I confess that the gui installers are getting better and I will stick with it for use at work occasionally ( you can never learn too much) but until something is done about installations it just wont appeal to home users (christ most find an autorun cd Halo install difficult)
just my thoughts.. I am not a windows fanboi so please dont flame me.. just a guy who likes computers
Easy transition to OS X for basic home users (Score:2, Insightful)
The same goes for basic corporate users, but since system skills can be acquired (by training, replacing, or hiring) there is also the option of linux or BSD.
Re:not accepted or just lazy, unorganized, dumb? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet they've successfully set up those networks in the first place, probably installed numerous other WinXP patches across their networks afterwards, probably installed and configured office apps, corporate database stuff, corporate Intranet stuff, and more.
Really, if installing SP2 from a centralised control point isn't a matter of "Click here" and perhaps fixing some unusual incompatibility problems on a small proportion of machines, then I'm betting it's SP2 (or its installation tools) that is broken, not the IT staff.
Re:You mean I cant use Semagic anymore??? (Score:4, Insightful)
The programs on the list are WORRYING the admins who are running custom software, legacy compatibility programs, specialised software.
I work for some schools in a London borough who have to make all financial arrangements over a program called SIMS which, last time I looked, was actually some sort of DOS-based program. It's had upgrades since but it still relies on communicating with the borough's financial systems which do not run on Windows but communicate over some sort of terminal interface. There were known incompatiblities with SP2 and this software because of the way it uses the network to communicate.
You upgrade and break that, the school can't pay their staff, buy products, organise mid-day catering or pay any suppliers. Because there is a policy of keeping all machines at the same patch level to prevent incompatibilities, the curriculum network (i.e. where the kids play) also cannot be upgraded until the incompatibilities are solved.
Therefore, 30-odd computers are forced to stay at SP1 because of the most important app in the school, which EVERY school in the borough runs (17 of them, I believe). That's getting into nearly a thousand computers all told that are hung up by an incompatibility with one program that's been running fine for YEARS.
You think MS know or care about a package that a London school uses on one machine in each school? No, so it's not on their incompatibility list. The point is that SP2 causes problems, especially with programs that use networking, that can only be found by testing. If the test fails, you have to wait for a fix from the vendor or make one yourself. In the meantime, you have to hold off on SP2.
Re:not accepted or just lazy, unorganized, dumb? (Score:5, Insightful)
The survey the article discusses says nothing about why, but apparently THG contacted "some admins in the trenches" who apparently gave some reasons. Of course they don't bother giving numbers of "admins in the trenches" they contacted or any relavent info.
I admin about 500 PCs, and we had NO problems. Granted almost all of the PCs have "standardized" hardware. No, not all PCs and periphials are identical but ALMOST all are from a single vendor (DELL) and have VERY similar hardware. We also have about a dozen standard software builds (with of course a number of one-off builds). We use a decent mix of MS apps, 3-rd party apps, and in-house apps.
The biggest issue we had was help-desk calls about pop-ups or ActiveX controls being blocked by default in IE. Preping for the rollout wasn't a very big task. Took under a week to fully test on standard builds.
I like
Maybe I (and the admins I know) were just "lucky", but based on my experience I have a really hard time accepting the crap I've read about SP2 on
Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why (Score:1, Insightful)
You clown.
Re:Whoa..first post? (Score:0, Insightful)
I think so. Buying a popular prebuilt system instead of building one from obscure parts, even if they offer better performance, etc., probably also improves the chances of having a stable system.
NX is still in a different category, though, because it's a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game, by disallowing something that used to be allowed. These sorts of changes always lead to problems, especially with older software, but in the long run they lead to better software overall.
Re:Simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
we hire competent people here for IT that know how to maintain a wide range of operating systems. in fact we have never in the past 6 years I have been here called on microsoft for any support, every patch they released usually went through 3 months of intense testing before we ever released one to production servers.....
so in that aspect microsofts "support" costs more than no support.
anyways, a completely insecure computer is very safe if you create your networks and use proceedures that protect the equipment and networks.
Please feel free to tell me how we are going to have HUGE support costs after it EOL's... as we have not seen it for any other OS that is EOL here.
I usually only hear about that support myth from the MS salesmen that show up from time to time.
Re:Simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure your company has strict procedures in place to protect against this sort of thing. However, I do feel the need to point out that, statstically, most security-related incidents are caused by insiders.
A couple of years back when I was still working as an admin I was hired by a company and on my first week there was a security incident. Upon investigation it turned out it was an ex-admin who had installed trojans on many of the servers that he had root access to while he was working there.
Re:Don't laugh. Re-installing SP2 may make it work (Score:3, Insightful)
I got the same expression from earlier versions of Windows (have not touched XP yet because I dislike the idea of "activation").
Considering the motivation of Microsoft management, I think it is simple profit maximizing, coupled with a bit of shortsightedness. So far, they could get away with releasing software that has only beta quality, so why spend more money and time on debugging?
Of course, this can backfire when serious competition appears, and seems to do so in the server market by now. At least, I frequently read about studies that show rapid growth of server-side Linux.
My nightmare with SP2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometime into downloading the first patches from windows update, the machine started to act oddly. Down to a crawl. Somehow during that time a worm had taken over and installed 30 or so different malware programs.
Screwed!
There seems to be no way to get that computer secure on the internet without either buying 3rd party firewall or SP2 cd which was not an option at the remote location.
Re:XP SP2 is more like rolling out a new OS (Score:3, Insightful)
* It was late
- it's MS. are you surprised? is this a valid reason not to upgrade?
* Lots of apps don't work with XP SP2, including some of Microsoft's own
- not out-of-the-box no. but after disabling/modifying the build-in firewall they will
* It's been known to be unstable
- a MS product that's unstable? no way!! I can only say that my pc doesn't crash more now that i've installed SP2.
* Difficult to install
- maybe if you have parkinson disease. i could easily click on the setup file/link after which it installed
* Additions like the firewall have serious shortcomings
- so disable it and buy a real firewall (hw/sw). You didn't have a firewall before SP2, so not upgrading because the new firewall doesn't work perfectly is, again, a bogus reason.
* It messes with settings and permissions
- didn't encounter those, but could be, yes. But now you know which settings they are, you could easily change them (back), right?
* Is still vulnerable anyway in many ways, and it can take weeks or months to force a repair or even admission.
- true about vulnerability. Did you really expect that *all* vulnerabilities were fixed? My, but you're optimistic
* Doesn't fix or remove MSIE
- lol. a MS SP that removes IE? Oh, and the fix is a seperate patch/hotfix.
* Has DRM features that let spammers 0wn the machine
- don't know about that, but i'm sure a good configured firewall takes care of this.
This post might seem like i'm heavily defending MS. I'm not. I just can't stand it when people claim something isn't working without bothering to check for themselves, or giving bogus arguments.
Not upgrading to SP2 because it doesn't 'fix' or remove IE is a terrible argument IMO. But hey, that's just me. And i'm not forcing anyone to upgrade. I'm just saying that most of your arguments aren't valid reasons not to upgrade though.
Re:Simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
SP2. Install it, goddamit.
Re:no comment (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not true when it's just your opinion.
The solution is obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't scream at Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want someone to scream at, scream at the vendors who make shoddy, ill-written software that won't work under SP2, who still haven't released product updates that are compatible with SP2.
I call bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, SP2 hasn't caused any problems in the broad range of machines I've seen or dealt with. While I don't doubt the 24% estimate, I sincerely doubt that 76% of machines lack the upgrade as a result of security concerns, which leads me to the second reason...
If approached by someone questioning why the machines aren't up-to-date, the lazy IT manager, feeling backed into a corner, will make an excuse about how he is still evaluating the potential dangers of the controversial upgrade.
Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why (Score:2, Insightful)
I call bullshit. A program on OSX that requires installation usually includes an installer (now granted some installers are triggered by dragging. You are informed of this though). Even if you are logged on as the admin you must authenticate before the system allows the installer to do anything to the system. One can, however install most programs simply by dragging them wherever.
Keep in mind if you want to install a program for all users (by dragging into /Applications) you will have to authenticate. Or you could just install it for your user by dragging it to the desktop / user's applications folder.
The grandparent is correct. These "Programs" are simply folders containing the executable and files the program might use.
OSX is designed not to let stupid users / admins do stupid / hasty things to the whole system. Sure there is lots going on behind the scenes all the time but it is documented well. When all else fails there is always the terminal to take a peek.
Re:XP SP2 is more like rolling out a new OS (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fairly normal for a major overhaul of an OS. Delivery dates change. SP2 fundamentally changed many of the ways that XP operates, and, contrary to some opinions, really did raise the bar on Windows security. Besides, the article to which you link was complaining about the delay of a few days from the release to premium subscribers. That's getting a little pedantic.
Lots of apps don't work with XP SP2 [microsoft.com], including some of Microsoft's own
Many of the apps on the list work fine on 32-bit XP SP2, but have problems on 64-bit. Most of the others have patches available to allow them to work fine with SP2. VirtualPC, for example, works at expected speeds when updated.
It's been known to be [crn.com] unstable [crn.com]
I'd like to be able to comment on this, but the article is expired.
Difficult to install [thechannelinsider.com]
Might be interesting to comment on this one, but it, too, is unavailable.
Additions like the firewall have serious shortcomings [eweek.com]
Wow, this is getting to be a trend. However, the Windows firewall was never intended to be an end-all, be-all solution. It was intended to make attacks more difficult by blocking off certain common ports. A middle ground was struck between home and enterprise users (one that was too open, IMHO) that still left some things somewhat open, but it's better than nothing. Had they come out with a miniature version of ISA, we'd have heard shouts (possibly including some from you, I suspect) that Microsoft was trying to put the security companies out of business.
It messes with settings and permissions [theregister.co.uk]
Of course it changes settings, though I saw little about changes to permissions. But that article, while somewhat correct on a few things, misses wide on others. It calls for Automatic Updates to be disabled because "users should update Windows manually, though regularly, paying attention to the various update options and their relevance to one's system," which we know siginificant portions of the installed userbase do not do, and have no knowledge to do so. It is a mechanism that, while potentially abusable by Microsoft, is by far the lesser evil when compared to worms running rampant because some patch from eight months prior wasn't installed.
Is still vulnerable anyway [eweek.com] in many ways [zdnet.co.uk], and it can take weeks or months to force a repair or even admission.
Microsoft never claimed that SP2 would be vulnerability-free. It claimed that it would be more secure, and generally speaking has been correct in this. Even the patches that have covered both SP1 and SP2 have in many cases had lower severity ratings for SP2.
Doesn't fix or remove MSIE [eweek.com]
Well, they're not going to remove IE, so there's not much point in complaining about that. But whether it fixes it is another question. Are there still vulnerabilities? Sure there are. But while IE still has a good distance to go, IE6 SP2 is far superior to its predecessors in terms of default security and blocking random installations. I have personal clients who were at first annoyed by IE's new features, and in recent months have come to love that it blocks so much (I'm still working on converting some of them to Firefox).
Has DRM features that let spammers 0wn [zdnet.co.uk] the machine
Not sure if this particular issue was ever directly addressed by Microsoft, but since I haven't seen much evidence of this method being used to gather up armies of zombies (most do it by e-mail or open ports), I'm not sure how serious it was to begin with.