Slashdot Mirror
Ready or Not, Here Comes Service Pack 2
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."
Sigh... if you don't like it turn off automatic updates... The force to install SP2 hasn't come yet.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
I have some sympathy for Microsoft here. If they don't force this patch, they're damned for perpetuating known security issues. If they do, they're damned for being bullies and for breaking compatibility with older applications.
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.
Why does this whole idea of remotely turning off a feature remind me of the fictional USR company in I, Robot switching off the 3 laws software?
Know the quality of XP SP2, if my computer were a robot this would be like switching some ethical software feature.
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
And how many PCs have you installed SP2 on? How many applications of yours did it break or are you just relying on the same old news stories and the tired I heard from a friend who had a friend that once installed SP2 and had an issue with it.
You complain when the OS has too many bugs, you complain that there are too many patches and hotfixes, you complain when MS decides to roll them all into an SP, you complain when it available for download, and you complain when its mandated.
... you can't have it both ways ...
I know this post will probably be karmically pounded, but in all honesty
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
I read the list of software that doesn't work with SP2. And out of tens of thousands of software packages that run on XP......
10 give blue screens (and 4 of them are old versions af ZoneAlarm)
6 don't run
18 have reduced functionality.
Also, from reports of above commenters, much of the software on the list only fails on some computers. I don't think that is evidence that SP2 is going to be a support nightmare. NOT installing SP2 is more of a support nightmare.
SUS (soon to be WUS) make it so easy to manage Windows patches that you'd have to be an idiot to not use it if you manage more than 10 computers.
Is it just me, or do most people stop reading a post once OSX is mentioned?
:)
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
my blog
How many different word processors do you need?
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 the store, Windows looks like the best choice because everything you want is right there, and it looks like less of a hassel.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Most of the posts I am reading are contradictory to most the posts I read right after XPSP2 was released. Then the general sentiment was that Microsoft was finally taking steps to secure their OS and sometimes breaking third-party compatibility was a necessary means to that end. Sooner or later a line had to be drawn in the sand and generally folks agreed that it was past due.
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...
It's not too late to switch now. Yes, even old dogs can learn new tricks. Assuming you are employed, the extra you pay for a Mac is worth it. You get quality hardware. Funny how people pay for quality in cars, sound systems and what not but when it comes to computers, they always want to pay rock-bottom as if it was the only acceptable way. You get what you pay for most of the time.
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.
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 enough users and users don't switch unless their are applications. Luckily it is a problem that is mostly solved at this point. Macs even play pretty much all of the popular PC games these days. Their are a few stragglers who trapped themselves by basing everything on DirectX and similar technologies and used less portable languages but for the most part I can't think of anything I want that is not available.
What is really amazing for switchers is not the applications though. Most of them are pretty much the same. The difference is how much the underlying OS changes the user experience. I really did not know what I was missing until I got multitasking that actually works and modular system wide services that let me spell check or speak aloud or translate to german any text in any application with three clicks. Standard UI elements that provide user feedback, expose, scriptable everything, UNIX tools and CLI, and some great included applications were icing on the cake.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Have fun with Windows. Personally, I dread using it (I still use it for compatibility testing and when I need some more terminals just to display info). Maybe some day soon the applications you want will migrate.
Most mainstream software stores severely under represent the Mac software base. This is a vicious cycle in my opinion - they don't stock it because they don't believe there is demand and there is no demand because they don't stock it.
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 of the amount of software out there, here's Amazon's 30 pages of Mac games - probably the Mac's weakest category.
Or look here to get an idea of the shareware/freeware available.
Some of us are running OSes other than Windows on x86 hardware, believe it or not. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
SP2 is only available as a large monolithic patch, which means it's an all-or-nothing proposition.
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...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
The windows update installer downloads an anti-virus scrubber as part of update since Jan 2005. That disinfects most machines.
The problem is no longer ordinary trojans, its rootkits that install as drivers.
The Linux world really needs to stop being so complacent about computer security. The level of the attacks is massively more sophisticated and determined than what was seen in the 1990s. Sure there is a version of Linux that has been secured by the NSA. Well whoopdeedo, how many people run it every day? answer almost none. They gave Carl Deutch, Director of the CIA a B-secure O/S to use, he refused to use it because it was unusable.
Take Windows XP gold, unpatched and put it on a public network, it will be compromised in 15 minutes and a bot within an hour. But do the same think with the contemperaneous release of Red Hat and OS/X, do the same thing and guess what they will all be compromised within a couple of days. If you do the same thing with the latest releases of the O/S and get them up to the latest patches they all survive.
Zombies are traded on the open market. Linux bots tend to fetch a higher price since they are more likely to be on a broadband connection. Apples are not too popular as bots because most apples being sold are laptops. Even the most determined hacker can't do anything with a machine that has been switched off.
When Joe Montana was quarterback for the 49ers they were unbeatable. Same thing with the Chicago Bulls when Jordan was playing. There is a tendency for folk on Slashdot to consider security in terms of the present only, as if Linux was the computer version of the New York Yankees and Windows is the Boston Red Sox.
Guess what, its not just the present team that matters, its how hard you are working on the next season. The whole field of computer security was dominated for 30 years by military security issues. The current problems of cybersecurity bear almost no relationship.
There are linux users in all the computer security events that I attend, but almost none of those people are wired into the Linux development process. At one time I had the idea of persuading the Firefox folk to build new features into their code as a way to put pressure on Microsoft. Today I am attempting the reverse strategy, using Microsoft to get changes into Firefox.
Big companies move slowly but they have hundreds of bodies they can throw at problems. That is not the case with FOSS.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
No, no, no.
Most business users who use Windows do so because they have one or two vertical market apps that require Windows. PERIOD.
These are places like doctors offices, lawyers offices, misc. professionals, trucking dispatch offices, printing companies, all those thousands of businesses which uses millions of PCs.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers - etc. My wife works with such a company. A quote from them covers everything you need - all the software, servers, hardware, printers, all of it - and gives you one bottom line price. And they get Windows!
This is how Windows is sold. Everytime this company makes a sale, Microsoft makes 100. The app in question integrates with Office, Small Business Server, Exchange, and SQL Server. The product they sell is not a piece of software, it is an integrated package to solve a real world problem.
There is no equivalent for this in the Mac, Linux, or alternative platform world.
There are lots of reasons - but if you can't find alternatives for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server" that will run on a *NIX you're reading the wrong web site.
.\.\att Clare
"All of the negative noise about SP2 is alot of FUD"
I think that's too strong a statement. If you haven't had any trouble, that doesn't mean that all the negative noise is FUD. I, for one, had to remove SP2 from my laptop because it would lock up when it was supposed to be going into power save mode or when it tried to shut down.
The manufacturer has since released a BIOS update that fixes it, but if I hadn't been able to remove SP2 or prevent it from being installed I would have seriously irked. SP2 has had some real compatibility issues.
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
Mac OS's Software Update does not automatically install patches. The most you can do is to have it download stuff in the background and make it available - you still have to tell it to patch, and you have to give it an administrator password for anything dangerous.
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 think it's legitimate to beat Microsoft up on security and patching strategies when other commercial entities exist that do them better on all counts.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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.
Also - ANY company that is running SMS or Software Update Services (FREE on 2K+ Server) can simply not approve the update and it won't be distributed. Any company that implemented the optional blocking of SP2 when it was first released should be able to do this without hassle.
...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
By no means is this shady. MS has been called the devil for years for having an unsecure OS (well deserved, IMO). They finally get the guts to secure XP as best they can, fully telling people that they will hate it and that it will break old apps. They do it, and still the crowds yell. Yes, Windows Update Services will auto-download this to your system, but only if you have Windows Update set to Auto. If you don't want it, disable it. If you are in a corporate environment, use Group Policy to disable Windows Update Services. If you do not know what I am talking about or how to disable it, then you are the exact person that SP2 is aimed at. Install it!
Was that night on the marge of Lake LaBarge I cremated Sam McGee...
and have not gone to SP2 yet, you have ZERO rights to bitch. I snagged SP2 off a torrent (right here at /.) the day it officially hit MSDN and have not had an issue. I have rolled it out professionally on over 600 machines with no issues, there are no serious application compatability issues if you patch your apps. Combine SP2 with MS anti-spyware beta and some decent anti-virus software and you are in for a much better experience and far fewer worries. I am kind of shocked at how low the SP2 install base currently is, this just proves that most people want to bitch about Windows but when given the chance to fix it they won't. If MS gives you the tools to secure your PC but you can't be bothered then whose responsibility is it?
i do use Mac... and Windows... and Linux...
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
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
You complain when the OS has too many bugs, you complain that there are too many patches and hotfixes, you complain when MS decides to roll them all into an SP, you complain when it available for download, and you complain when its mandated.
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.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
What's your company's potential liability if, because of your inaction, some exploit causes your non-upgraded machines to cause damage/harm to others?
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Most the games at the store that are made for Windows are (mostly) also made for Mac."
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.
"Derp de derp."
What makes you believe you can't block the update? Just turn off Automatic Updates. If you have a large network to manage you can just add a group policy to enforce the change on all of your client desktops.
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?
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Of course now that the defaults are in a more secure state the people that weren't complaining before start to complain.
The bad part of the new version of windows is the apps that don't work correctly with it. Its too bad that the apps were unable to be updated in a timely manner.
Has anyone looked into writing a script that sets the registry keys that MS uses to check for the existance of SP2 to say that SP2 is already installed? This would block it from automatically installing I think.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
What you say is true enough for home usage and general business usage. It's even true for certain business niches (graphic design, video editing, sound design etc.) where the Mac has a strong foothold.
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 resources?
I'm not trolling, I'm asking. Does anyone in the Mac market cater to medium and large business applications?
One of the problems I run into, is that most of these applications (even those with a web front end) are not Mac compatible. So typically we have to write custom code to expose these systems to the our Production department (which is on Mac).
Sometimes my arms bend back.
From my experience the Windows Firewall puts itself at the front of the line with the default of everything blocked (except some popular programs including Microsoft programs)
The only unsecured programs, then, will be ones Microsoft wrote?
Whew... I was worried there for a moment.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
People bitch every time Microsoft releases a significant security-related update for Windows that stops existing software from working. They never stop and think that the fault lies not with Microsoft for fixing a security hole but with the application makers for writing their software in such a way that it relies on a security hole. Like it or not, closing security holes is going to inevitably require existing software to be rewritten to not utilize those holes.
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.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
It's also about support. The company I work for does cross platform software. On the Windows side we support win98-Server2003. That's a wide range. In the Mac we support 10.2 and up. What happened to 10.0 and 10.1? They came out about the same time XP did. Where did the support go?
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.
Oh, for god's sake, read the damn link. I know it's at microsoft.com, but it won't kill you. It really annoys me when people quote that list of "applications that are broken by xp SP2". These are the categories:
Multiplayer games and instant message programs that are used over the Internet.
Windows XP SP2-based client programs that receive data from a server.
Windows XP SP2-based server programs that respond to client requests.
Anyone see a connection? Yeeees, they're all apps that connect outside the machine. Hang on - xp sp2 has a firewall! And it's turned on by default! So maybe, just maybe, these apps aren't broken by sp2, but you have to set the firewall up to let them communicate? (Note, this isn't a maybe, it's a fact) Have you ever seen a firewall that doesn't block propriatry inbound/outbound comms by default?
Caveat: Some on that list are apps that will bluescreen. The majority are not. It is the majority to which I refer above.
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
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
If your enterprise is taking auto-updates then you should be prepared to accept automatically what's on the auto update site. If you don't want autoupdates then you've got plenty of other options for patch deployment that will allow you to pick and choose what gets pushed to whom.
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Of course there are some IT professionals who don't want a database, firewall, commerce development system that are so linked that compromising one compromises the all.
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 have made and ultimately did make different choices on the various components.
Microsoft's or anyone else's approach of one size fits all, usually means that one size fits no one.
Maybe that was worded poorly, let me explain. I've used windows all my life and recently linux caught my eyes so I installed it to my second hard drive and on my old computer. I found it very easy to switch from windows to linux, the OS basicly handled the same way and I didn't have much trouble running any windows apps on linux. Not to say that there weren't problems at the start with networking ect. but once I got everything running it was easy switch back and forth.
Now my expirence with macs is this:
1) They're hard to take apart.
I've found that their hardware is incompatible with almost everything I have round. My school offers a unique chance. They hired me and two of my freinds under the supervision of our sys admin and net admin to take care of the computers and network at our schools over the summer. Four out of five of the school use brand new WinXP machines. We were surprised to find when we got to the elementary school that they were still using macs in the computer lab there (though the teachers computers all ran windows). When we took them apart to clean them out inside it was like a jigsaw puzzle, we had to remove, a side panel, unscrew a screen, and then another panel just to get inside of them. Once there I found that non of the hardware looked like what I expected it to. Now granted it wasn't a hard layout to understand and heck maybe it was even better than what I'm used to but I'm not sure if I got a mac and the sys crashed that I'd be able to take it apart and fix the problem.
2)Last I heard (I could be wrong) they aren't able to run software written for windows.
I could be wrong about this one (maybe something changed since the last time I checked) but I remember my freind getting a mac computer and being very annoyed that he had to buy all new software because all the apps he had didn't run on the machine.
That's all I meant by compatiblity, I'm sure it would be equally annoying for a mac user to switch to windows but right now, unless I'm mistaken, none of the computer parts/applications I have sitting here would work on a mac machine.