Ready or Not, Here Comes Service Pack 2 725
I_am_Rambi writes "On Tuesday, April 12, Microsoft will turn off the blocking feature that has made it possible for some enterprises to block Windows XP Service Pack 2 downloads by employees who use Automatic Update. That means in companies that used the blocking tool, SP2 will be downloaded automatically to desktop computers that use Windows' Automatic Update feature." An anonymous reader adds "Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2. Most of the software will either not run or will display a blue screen of death during installation of the software or when you start up your computer." That may be why, as ErichTheWebGuy writes, "In a survey of PCs at 251 businesses in the U.S. and Canada, asset tracking company AssetMetrix of Ottawa found that only 24 percent of the systems running Windows XP had been upgraded to Service Pack 2."
We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Interesting)
" You vill download zee program and you vill love it!" I for one would not want to be on the end of the help desk phones. "What do you mean you installed SP2?!!? Our company policy specifically prohibits that Service Pack because of incompatibility X"
Seriously though, looking at the list, there are some stunning show stoppers. Photoshop CS!!?! Live Motion! and perhaps the most surprising of all, Microsoft's own Virtual PC.
Yeah, I think I will stick with OS X for my daily productivity which makes me wonder just what Microsoft is planning on doing for those individuals who switch to OS X. Microsoft does not appear to be doing anything to stop the emigrating hoards or doing anything to retain folks on the Windows platform. For instance, our Windows based systems are locked down pretty hard and our students are not allowed to surf the Internet or do anything else on them that does not have to do with the specific tasks they are set up for. We have provided them with OS X boxes that they can do anything with or install anything they want onto. At meetings I attend, there has been a sharp upswing in the numbers of Apple laptops seen in the last couple of years and the resounding response to why has been, "it's just easier after getting tired of dealing with all the crap Windows puts one through". There has been no compelling reason for folks to remain on the platform other than reasons where you might be locked into a particular piece of software or other Microsoft specific needs.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, you lazy IT folk will not be able to stop your users from downloading and installing it.
I run an absolutely plain XP system on my laptop. The only company provided programs I use are office, Visio and occasionally Visual Studio. There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have used XP SP2 the day it was released. I can't download it and run it on my machine because IT is still checking out a bunch of apps they wrote that I never use.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:4, Funny)
Call us when you've pushed enough product into the channel.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Informative)
All of the negative noise about SP2 is alot of FUD (howz that for irony). I recommend it to all of my neighbors who are inundated with viruses and [mal|ad]-ware (no way they are switchng to Linux, so don't even go there).
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Informative)
> my Windows XP SP2 box
Those who actually paid attention to the WHOLE list know that PhotoShop CS only fails to start under XP SP2 on 64-bit processors, and that Virtual PC simply runs XP SP2 virtual machines more *slowly* than XP SP1 virtual machines.
You know, if you want to do more than knee-jerk over the name in the left hand column.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:4, Informative)
It has never had any problems what so ever with any application I have ever used, with exception to windows itself.
However I will repeat myself on how to get rid of those things that cause SP2 to screw up applications.
First: Turn off NoExecute, easily done by altering your boot.ini to remove the
Method 1: Hit start and go to Run... Type cmd
- Type: attrib -s -h -r %SystemDrive%\boot.ini
- Type: notepad %SystemDrive%\boot.ini
- Remove all instances of
- Save, Exit, and Type: attrib +s +h +r %SystemDrive%\boot.ini
- Reboot and NoExecute is now gone.
Method 2: Right click on My Computer and go to Properties
- Click on the Advanced tab and hit the settings button located in the Startup and Recovery section.
- Hit the edit button undernear the first set of check marks.
- Remove all instances of
- Save, exit, reboot.
Turn off the windows firewall
Method 1: Install a 3rd party software firewall first before continuing.
- Hit Start -> Run... and type: services.msc
- Navigate down the list until you get to Windows Firewall, double click on it.
- Hit the stop button and change the Startup type combobox to Disabled.
- Hit ok and close this.
- If you wish to turn off nagging (if your firewall does not support telling windows about itself) continue to the following.
Get rid of those firewall/antivirus/update warnings
Method 1:
- Go to your control panel. In either classic view or category view, open Security Center
- On the Resources bar, click on "Change the way Security Center alerts me"
- Uncheck all that you want the security center to quit nagging about.
- Hit ok. You are done.
I do not condone usage of windows sp2 without these key features, designed to prevent virii and attacks on your computer, without actually knowing what the hell you are doing, or at least have a viable replacement for them. NoExecute, in my view, is a waste of cpu cycles and memory space because most devices out there do not support the NX bit flag properly. Even on my Athlon64 3000+ I can see a pretty heafty performance hit in applications such as Photoshop CS when NoExecute is enabled, and other applications such as WindowBlinds (other than their was-then beta for SP2 users) and DesktopX become extremely unstable. Clearly microsoft did not have application compatibility in mind when they added this feature, but at least with the new revision of windows firewall it had a little more (of much needed) power. I like it how it can configure my router's hardware firewall as well as provide an additional layer of security for my systems. It does lack the configurability of the much loved Linux Firewall, and there are alternative firewalls I can use, but they tend to cause other conflicts with my other applications. So the jury is out with the Windows Firewall, but damn. The security center was by far the most annoying thing I have seen microsoft implement. I hope these corporate users have fun if their admins forget to turn that annoying service off.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:2)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
MS Virutal PC works on SP2. (Score:2)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Informative)
The "problem" you missed is listed right there in TFA:
"When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine."
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Informative)
There's a Service Pack [microsoft.com] for Virtual PC that fixes the issue.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the first paragraph, then started the second one and BOOM! OSX fanboy alert! I didn't even bother to look at the next sentence. Then I realized my behavior was instinctual, and went back to question it... and indeed, the rest of the post was a rant about BWJones' lust for Steve Jobs' anal cherry. Now I see why I act that way.
Sorry BWJones, I know you're a really active poster
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:4, Funny)
Once OSX what?
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
The only major failings that OS X has are in dealing with Windows code (it doesn't have all of the windows coding environments, perhaps obviously so), and it has very little CAD/other architectural programs and it has fewer games. It has a lot more games now than it used to, though, with big ones being Doom 3, WoW, and Unreal Tournament 2005.
All of the major apps are cross platform (adobe, macromedia, 3d apps, video apps, Office) and open up files the same regardless of where they were authored. In some cases, for the more "basic" software there are MORE choices, if only because the userbase is growing more from people who aren't simply using old mIRC or whatever, and there's a great number of linux/bsd programmers who are porting their work simply and quickly.
Recently I was looking for a decent IRC client. There's like 10 different apps, all with a different look and feel and how they handle the various features of OSX. For some of them, i emailed the developer asking about some functionality, and in every case, the guy got back to me right away. And this wasn't about compiling the software, but rather again just simply copying the app somewhere on my HDD and double-clicking it.
It's the same with FTP clients, text editors, video playback, and more. Perhaps the biggest difference is that there's a great deal of free software that isn't shareware with infinite nag screens.
So for people who are stuck using specific windows software, sure, you're going to have issues. But for pretty much everything besides games and CAD, there's really nothing that you can't do on OS X.
But you can't tell that by walking into a b&m and looking at what's on the shelf. You would need to actually look for it. Most Windows users are very comfortable looking for software online and know of the resources available to get it. To think that the same resources aren't available for OS X is kind of short sighted. As anyone who uses a mac will tell you, once you have it and are looking for programs, finding them is the easy part. But if you don't have the mac and aren't looking for the software, of course you're not going to know what's out there.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the business. In my experience, most business users use Windows just because that is what they know. It is a comfortable choice. In an a typical office, people just need word processing, maybe a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser. There may be be a few people in the company who use special apps that only run on Windows, but most have very basic needs. But again, it really depends on the company. Some companies do revolve around a specific application. You're painting with a very wide brush.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers
They do? Do you deal exclusivly with startups with large amounts of venture capital and/or grants? In my 7 years as an IT consultant, I have seen very few companies lay out the cash for a complete, new, integrated setup. Most companies piece their network together. Couple new computers here, a couple there. A new server when the old one craps out. That kind of thing. Our sales guys would be in hog heaven if what you say were true. Then again, we are not Microsoft whores (although we do our share of Windows work) like your wife's company sounds like it is, so maybe they just aren't coming to us for these "integrated" setups.
-matthew
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
What I would like to know, is are there comparable Enterprise applications available for the Mac? A lot of industries are serviced by very specific software applications, many of which run on Windows. Enterprise wide CRM software on the Mac? How do you handle groupware and collaboration? Accounting, human reso
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm being a bit facetious but you get my point. Corporations like to stay with companies that stand behind their software. MS only recently stopped supporting NT4 and in fact still will if you are will to pay.
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not switch from windows to a mac is because of the lack of software. The last time I was at the computer store I walked into the Mac section to look around. Their selection of software was 1/4th that of the PC's, and mostly graphical software.
If most people think like you Windows will dominate forever, even if it sucks. For me, OS X has all the applications I use (including some not available for windows). It is a chicken and egg problem. Developers don't port applications unless their are enoug
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
When I go into my local PC software store to buy the Mac software I'm after they very rarely have it, and I'm sure they don't capture the fact that I asked about it.
So I tend to use specialist stores or buy online. Amazon or the online AppleStore are not bad.
To get an idea o
Re:OS X (Score:3, Informative)
First, in regards to Mac software in stores, you might want to look a little closer at the PC section, where you'll be surprised to find that some of those CDs work just fine on Macs. Of course, they don't put this in the Mac software section because it also works on PCs. My local MicroCenter [microcenter.com], for example, places these sorts of titles in a separate aisle with a little sign in the Mac section saying "More software available in Aisle 13."
I may be wrong but, for example, World of Warcr
Re:OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
But when you buy a computer, if you want games or certain software, you normally buy it at the store. Most people who use computers don't want to have to download the software, even if it is free. Plus, it might require having to get a faster internet connection, because 56k modem is too slow, or go somewhere and burn a cd. Most people don't want that hassel. In
Re:OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought about switching. But I am cheap. Not so cheap I won't spend money on quality, but more of a frugal cheap. I want to know exactly where the extra $$ is going, what I am getting for it. I don't blow cash on good advertising, or on hype. I'd rather save it.
I completely agree with your sentiment, but sometimes hype isn't hype and is, rather, truth. Macs are better machines, in every aspect except for gaming. I named my second son after Ben Franklin; his frugality is one of the many characteristics I admire about the man. I'm no spendthrift.
I bought a G5 a little over a year ago. Up until then I was purely a PC guy, from DOS 3.0 to WinXP. On average I was spending $400/yr on hardware: memory, CPUs, HDs, etc. Since I got the G5 (a 1.8GHz with 1G RAM), my hardware outlay has been exactly $0. Not to mention the fact that it has been as stable as a rock, whereas with Windows for various reasons I was having to reinstall the OS at least once a year, which I hated and took time I would rather not spend.
My PowerMac was $1600, and I have never once regretted spending that money, and consider myself frugal over the long run for spending it. Sometimes a higher initial investment pays out over the long term. That's been my experience here. If a PowerMac is out of your range, perhaps you could try a mini; they're $500, and are apparently quite a good machine.
Now, software. I have spent $0 there, as well. A friend of mine had a copy of Office he let me borrow, and every other piece of software I needed came preinstalled on the box: Quicken, Mail, iCal, iPhoto, etc. I did buy iLife '04 for $20 at Fry's, but that had a $20 mail in rebate, so there's that. I use Camino (think Gecko rendering engine with Cocoa look-and-feel) for a browser, and the open source software available is volumnious. I've never needed a piece of software that I couldn't find.
Your mileage may vary, but I've been very happy (as opposed to frequently frustrated) with my home computer ever since I "switched." I've never even had to crack open the case, although I have done so just to check it out. But the combination of rock-solid hardware with elegant, stable, secure software is extremely satisfying.
Re:OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, I know Mac users who do realize Apple is fallible, but they are rare and you probably won't find them on /.
I prefer Macs because I have experience with both PCs and Macs. Macs are better machines. It has nothing to do with zealotry; I've tried both, and found the differences to be substantial enough to warrant "switching."
If that makes me a zealot, then so be it.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that difficult and they've given folks plenty of notice about this change.
In terms of applications that get broken by SP2, considering that there are thousands of programs that run on Windows XP the list of affected apps is impressively small.
BTW, I run the latest version of Photoshop on my XP SP2 box with no problems at all. What broke for you?
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Informative)
Allow my to introduce my friend for managing updates over a large Windows domain: SUS.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sus/ d efault.mspx [microsoft.com]
I just pulled the update from a subnet of 12 PCs for a group who wanted to check before/after issues (It was a bug in our code if you must know). I can still roll out new updates over the network very easily, but SP2 just isn't installed.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now my expirence with macs is th
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:4, Informative)
Games.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Insightful)
they all have different purposes, and i use them all differently. if i had to pick one to get rid of, i can see more reasons to stick with Windows over Mac (mainly games, but then again, i'm a gamer)
and you won't find my parting with my Debian Distro anytime soon
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. I recently went game shopping with my cousin for his Mac. We went to a Mac store in L.A.. A big Mac store. It barely had half an aisle of games, a lot of them 2 years old. Despite the fact that he had only a handful of games to begin with, he still left the store disappointed. This is in stark contrast to going somewhere like Best Buy and having 2 or 3 aisles of 6 months old or newer games. I think what you really mean to say is "a few of PC's most popular titles have made it to Mac. Occasionally they even happen within a year of the original release date."
"Besdies, computers are meant for work."
Wrong. Computers are meant to do whatever you want them to do. It would be a waste of money to spend $2k on a machine and not have any fun on it. (Conversely, it'd be a waste of money to spend 2K on it and do nothing but play games.)
"You want to play games than I'd suggest a PS2."
Correction: If you want to play a certain selection of genres, get a PS2. If you want to play FPS multiplayer or MMORPG, a PS2 isn't going to do you a lot of good.
Indisputably, PCs are far more general purpose machines than Macs. Some of this claim is based on technical specs, some of it is based on the way the market works, and some if it is based on the wide variety of people with varied needs. (including the desire to have a huge game library.)
Note to Mods: Just to be clear, this is not intended as an insult to Macs. Think about what I've actually stated before knee-jerk modding my comment as flamebait.
Re:We have ways of making you do things. (Score:3, Informative)
Macs/Windows -- it isn't a binary choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Three words: Enterprise-level software. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the Mac has no serious equivalent for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server, Exchange Server, Operations Manager, or even the level of capability afforded by Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server. This utter lack of matching enterprise-level capability is part of what keeps Macs firmly out of my company's infrastructure.
Re:Three words: Enterprise-level software. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I would think that you would want the best tools for the job at hand. The Microsoft solution is like the old all in one console stereos (turntable, radio, 8track, speakers, etc. in a big wooden case). They didn't last, because the convienence of having it all seemlessly linked together was fine for some, but most people would h
A more interesting percentage would be (Score:3, Interesting)
Either to download and install (for the brave of heart) or to download and review (for the sound of mind).
I bet there's a strong corellation between the numbers.
The choice would suprise you... (Score:2)
With some service packs, after the instal, the update is turned on automatically; where joe blow won't know how to turn it off. In some ways, it is worse than Real Player.
And that gets to the heart of my critisism of Microsoft. They sell a product the end user has less and less control over. That is not how it used to be back in the glory days of computers.
Re:A more interesting percentage would be (Score:3, Insightful)
Your postinglike a stereotypical IT-staffer response (and I say that with the benefit of 20 years of experience as an IT-staffer). You tell me why the idea is stupid, broken, and won't work rather than focusing on making it work.
Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming you download SP2, inavertently because you allow auto-update, will it install with the Windows firewall defaulting to On?
The most sure-fire way to attract the attentions of any virus (including human virus/worm authors) is to have a dense population of the same thing. Naturally, a large number of SP2 firewall enabled computers will provide a challenge to the vermin who write virus/worms will be focusing on it and what a lovely day it will be when they've cracked it.
At least I didn't see my firewall listed, and I ain't revealing what it is, either.
It destroys th settings in favor of its new matrix (Score:5, Informative)
I was using Norton Internet Security and it continued to run and monitor program activity and port usage, but *behind* Windows' Firewall. After installation you have to shut off Windows Firewall and tell Windows that's okay and that you're running NIS.
(Or you could download the patch from Symantec that does that for you and notifies Windows that it's the Preferred Firewall vendor.)
Re:Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:3, Interesting)
WordPerfect
ZoneAlarm
Norton Anti-Virus
VOILA! those 3 right there makes Windows an overlord. "YOU MUST USE OUR OFFICE, FIREWALL, AND ANTIVIRUS.. AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!"
Wow... How are the courts NOT suing for this?? And
Wow.
Re:Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:3, Informative)
1. The baloon that says 'click this baloon to fix this problem'
2. The big button marked recommendations that includes the option to not monitor.
3. The menu that includes the option not to monitor.
Those are your choices, after clicking 1, you can follow 2 or 3.
Seriously, how do you make it simpler? It's already popping something up to tell you how to change it, do you need some kind of loud alarm and flashing lights to go with it?
Re:Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:3, Informative)
SELinux was added to Fedora with Fedora Core 2, with FC3 they now use 'targeted' policies (like theres a policy for what Apache can do, and other services to prevent what can happen even if there is a f'in massive security hole in it). SELinux isn't the only security project, most distributions are actively working on security as well, like Gentoo has the hardened patc
Re:Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Zeinfeld says:
Will you please cite a source for that FUD?
Re:Hello SP2, Good-Bye Firewall, Hello Zombies? (Score:3)
My last XP Sp1 install I left the net cable in (not gold, mind you, but sp1). The box was completely infected before the install completed.
Nice (Score:4, Funny)
Having SP2 is Better Than Not Having It (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Having SP2 is Better Than Not Having It (Score:2)
It's a dell Inspiron 8200 using the supplied Windows XP Home, and I certainly know I'm not the only one with problems.
Microsoft *can* win -- by compartmentalizing! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were to break the patch up into various smaller patches against individual areas of the OS, the chances are good that most of them would work at a given site.
It's the overly-simplistic approach that Microsoft takes to system fixes that helps to cause this type of problem...
Uhm. (Score:2)
Re:Uhm. (Score:3, Insightful)
SP2 drove me to Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SP2 drove me to Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
A security center to help improve OS security?
Well, then a secure OS like Linux must be wrong for you!
Re:SP2 drove me to Open Source (Score:3, Funny)
Some people you just can't trust...
use SUS (Score:5, Informative)
with this you can control what patches are deployed and when
So use SUS (Score:5, Informative)
Setup correctly with group policy you can prevent users from running windows update and installing updates themselves.
Which is essential with XP SP2 as I look after around a thousand desktops and SP2 has been NOTHING but trouble in all our testing so far.
Re:So use SUS (Score:2, Insightful)
In Group Policy one sets how Automatic Updates work, one can even turn them off or redirect it to the SUS server of your choice. Come on people, this is so much crap about how everything breaks and the sky is falling. I call FUD
Re:So use SUS (Score:5, Informative)
We use SUS to manage around 200-300 Windows 2K and XP machines across four sites and haven't had any major issues with pushing updates out. Ditto with SP2 - while we do use a few custom-built applications internally, most of them are web applications. Some careful planning and firewall configurations meant that come deployment, we had pretty much zero issues.
I have to say that SUS is great, although we do have some internal rules we adhere to. Firstly the IT department gets the patches a week before anyone else - just in case any issues arise. Secondly, we never run our servers under SUS. They have allocated downtime windows for patching and testing.
SUS is about to change into Windows Software Update Services [microsoft.com] (WSUS, not WUS as incorrectly mentioned somewhere here) which rolls Office, Windows and Server software updates into one management console. Hopefully that'll keep patching more centralised and easier to deploy in the long run.
SUS isn't dead (Score:3, Informative)
SUS is still the supported the "current" product.
Here comes the FUD..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here comes the FUD..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft releases a "patch", the ramifications of which are sufficiently severe that the idea of being forced to prepare for it as a destructive event is a universally accepted premise. We, as Microsoft customers are so inured to the idea that we do not control our own systems that the implicit suggestion of that already accepted premise is actually used as a platform from which to shame those who have not implemented (known harmful!) Microsoft en
SovietSoft (Score:2, Funny)
OUTRAGE!!!! (Score:2)
VirtualPC (Score:2)
(ok, technically the page says it will work, but will be much slower than before Sp2)
I've got an idea! (Score:2, Informative)
Now wasn't that easy?
Easy solution (Score:3, Funny)
This is stupid... (Score:2)
For users of windows who have automatic updates, they will HAVE to get XP SP2. OR, they can turn off automatic updates.
As far as XP SP2 not being on a lot of business machines, the whole hey-some-applications-won't-work thing turns people, I don't know, sort of off, wouldn't you say? I know I didn't deploy it at one office for months in fear i
DUPE (Score:2, Informative)
Virtual PC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Did anyone take notice of the fact that only one software package from Microsoft doesn't play nice with SP2?
Microsoft will counter any criticism of their move by pointing out that this is a thrid-party vendor problem. While they may technically be correct, what happened to the tightly-integrated developer network that Microsoft has worked to cultivate. While they have made apps easier to write and execute in the Windows environment, they have also had to play the role of whipping boy when the OS didn't play well.
It is shitty being at the top.
Re:Virtual PC? (Score:2)
Why, it gave people months and months and months of information, and beta versions to test against, and release candidates to test against, and so on and so fifth.
Note that this is on top of Microsoft trying to gently ease people over from the 'one user, full access' paradigm to the 'multi-user, restricted access unless you really really need full access to install something' paradigm.
The fact that some ven
Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the choices they're facing, I have to admit this seems reasonable: a few months for businesses to make the move on their own, after which they flip the switch so anyone on Automatic Update receives the patch.
Ongoing experiment... (Score:5, Interesting)
How much longer would it take, if Microsoft wanted to hold of a release of Windows, to make it right so that service packs are not needed? Is it a matter of months, or is the computer operating system a beast that can't be predicted until it is used by a large number of people?
And just to rant, because it is Microsoft, I hate service packs because they can force a different EULA on the user. I had one copy of Windows I paid for, and installed it the way I wanted it to work. I then had to download the security patches and updates, and I had to click a new EULA and had some settings changed (such as having automatic update turned on). I now firewall my system like a son of a bitch because I don't trust those fuckers in Richmond.
How about if you sell me something, and you promise it works, when you find out that it does not work, you don't offer me the fix and then change the rules?????
I would love to see an OS made for specific hardware that is bullet proof. That would be a cool thing.
MS == USR? (Score:2, Insightful)
Know the quality of XP SP2, if my computer were a robot this would be like switching some ethical software feature.
Working software list (Score:2, Funny)
I upgraded expecting to continue having all the parasites and tracking that I am used to
Yeah, no wonder why no one wants this.... (Score:2)
April 12? That's my birthday! (Score:3, Funny)
Can't have it both ways /. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this post will probably be karmically pounded, but in all honesty
Re:Can't have it both ways /. (Score:3, Insightful)
the complaint, as i see it, is that the os has too many bugs, and now a patch is being forced that has just as many, but new, different and exciting, bugs. no one is really complaining about SPs, that they can be downloaded, etc.
as far as having it both ways, what's wrong with wanting a fix for the current bugs without introducing a boatload more? why can't we have both of those?
Apple has it both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple does both security patches and point releases between major yearly (or so) updates. It's rare for either kind of patch to break existing applications - the recent spate of point releases that broke stuff was news because it's rare.
I thin
How to have your cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head exactly.
Personally, I'll stop complaining when:
1. The OS runs ZERO listening services by default.
2. The browser is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
3. The media player is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
4. The email client is not only NOT a default part of the OS, but refuses to run executable content.
At that point, quite frankly I couldn't care less about bugs, patches, service packs, or automatic updating. Because there would be no need for any of it. Those 4 issues above cover pretty much every critical Windows update in the past umpteen years.
No Problems With SP2 (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be interested to know how such a bad experience with SP2 could prompt somone to switch their primary OS to OS X or Linux. It seems to me that the inconvenience of switching OS's is far greater than that of suffering through a few incompatible programs (especially if those programs or others are not even available on the other OS).
I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does with Longhorn. If it lives up to its long-awaited potential, then I'll stick around. Otherwise, I too will have had enough with Microsoft and will migrate completely to Linux.
Hypocritical (Score:3, Insightful)
Since XPSP2 was released the third-party companies have had adequate time to revise their products to be compatible with XPSP2. And, as I have read on a couple of posts, some of the apparent compatibility issues are resolved by allowing the program executable access through the Windows Firewall. The ones that aren't this simple have had time to bring their products up to speed.
Look how long it's been since XPSP2 has been released for downloading. It's about time it's automatically prompted as a Windows Automatic Update option isn't it? What's the big deal? I support a Windows corporate environment and haven't encountered any BSOD's where the PC's won't even boot up due to installing XPSP2. Methinks a bit of extra FUD on the fire...
I'm sorry, but 3rd party software should work now. (Score:5, Informative)
Similarly, if you're using an older version of a product that fails to work in SP2, you should be seeking a solution (in the form of a patch or other workaround) from the software vendor, not Microsoft. If it is an internal program your company wrote itself for internal workflow, there should have been a project to make it work under SP2 all this time. Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on Microsoft's part.
The security benefits of SP2 to the average user are real, and worth having. It isn't Microsoft's fault that 3rd party developers are still dragging their feet after all this time.
That said, it is unfortunate when otherwsie perfectly good software stops working in SP2 and the poor user is forced to perform a non-free upgrade to a new version. But again, this is not Microsoft's fault.
And finally, please don't tell my copies of NAV 2003 and Photoshop CS to stop working on my computer because SP2 is installed. They both work fine now, so I guess they didn't get the memo.
I'm sure I'll be modded down, but keep in mind I'm writing this with Firefox under Ubuntu. ;-)
3rd party software getting 3rd-class information! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm working for a very large company, with a group that has to write drivers and GUIs that run under Windows. So far the reliability of the documentation coming from MSFT about the current WinXP APIs has been about as reliable as the press releases by the Iraqui Minister of information under Saddam Hussein. Reverse engineering is usually faster than asking for more information.
With the betas of new MSFT releases, frequent undocumented changes to the APIs are the rule, not the exception.
It's no wonder no one wants to change anything: it's a certainty that something will blow up with SP 2 that is critical to the business.
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
In order to install the service pack, the user has to be an admin and aceept the EULA as well as click through several disclaimers before manually installing the service pack.
THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC INSTALL OF SP2
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
So, Microsoft's tool won't let you block the download. Big whoop. Block it yourself on your network router/firewall.
And in other Slashdot news. . . THE SKY IS FALLING OMGOMGOMGOMG
Bitching at the wrong software (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if Microsoft doesn't release a security update, then everyone bitches about the lack of security updates. So I guess there's just no pleasing some people.
Quick Workaround: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dumb, dumb, dumb... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Photoshop CS (Score:2)
As to be expected from Microsoft, their documentation is poor and misleading.
Re:Photoshop CS (Score:2)
Re:Photoshop CS (Score:3, Informative)
The fourth column in the table [microsoft.com] is processor type. Apparently, Photoshop CS doesn't work on a 64-bit processor with NX (no-execute protection) enabled.
FWIW, I'm running Photoshop CS on a P4 laptop with WinXP SP2 and all updates, and it runs great.
Re:XP versus OSX (Score:3, Informative)