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."
" 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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
how many run Windows Update automatically?
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"employees who use Automatic Update"
My company blocks all access to windowsupdate.microsoft.com so I don't see why this is an issue.
Oh well, we don't use XP yet either but that's neither here nor there I think.
I don't understand all the negative hype around SP2. Everyone I know has had a painless experience running SP2 and their Windows computers are more secure for having SP2 installed on it.
Read More
Nothing to see here
The outright stupidity of Microsoft doesn't cease to amaze me. SP2 is known to be buggy, and some of us are perfectly happy with our SP1 machines. Ah, well, I've been meaning to reinstall Gentoo... :)
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
Some applications will cause a load of problems with SP2. A BSOD isn't exactly a painless experience, especially when it could have been avoided if M$ wasn't forcing down incompatible updates down everyone's throats.
"Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2."
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.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Because I don't have the disk space for it.
01/20/09
We slowly rolled SP2 out in our organization (small at only 150 PCs) several months ago and have found no compatibility issues. Although I disagree with MS forcing users to install it, I can see it from their point of view. If they're going to continually get nailed for their lack of security, releasing a major security pack that people don't install doesn't improve their situation. I also think the user posts thus far are extremely exaggerating potential problems. The only problems we have had are a few power users being hindered by the Firewall. Of course, the solution was to open up the firewall for that application or that port. But that's an issue you'll have with any personal firewall software (otherwise it's not doing a good job at blocking).
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.
I noticed that Microsoft lists their virtual PC software as a problem with SP2. According to their page, it performs slower than a virtual PC with sp1 loaded. I noticed the same thing when I tested it months ago. However, disabling the firewall increased performance dramatically.
Also, my wife's 1.2ghz machine with 256mb of ram was brought to its knees by SP2. Sure enough, disabling the firewall brought the machine back up to snuff. We're behind a hardware based firewall, so I'm not terribly concerned, but what exactly is going on here? There are a lot of sub 1ghz machines with XP deployed out there, and it looks to me like for those unfortunate users the performance of a spyware ladden PC is roughly the same if not better as one running the supposedly more secure SP2.
Like my comments? Try my podcast: http://www.baldmove.com
Why aren't we all using Macs in the first place?
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.
The coolest voice ever.
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.
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.
let it be known that SP2 is only downloaded it is not installed.
Does that mean it will be downloaded (and redownloaded) for all the users?
Or it will start downloading only for someone with administrator priviledges?
(This mail is not about sarcasm. Please dont mod down)
Come on people, you have had time to get ready for this.
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 enforced changes to their computer systems. Why is this situation considered to be rational and fair?
I've been a sysadmin for years. I know a good sysadmin is responsible for patching systems. Windows XP SP2 is NOT a maintenance item! It is a fundamental change in the way the operating system works, with documented destructive effects by the actual vendor! Can anyone explain to me how a Microsoft service pack is now considered in the same way that taxes are? Has the legacy of the screaming 90's - when technology came and went within the time frame of months - been to create a state of mind where everyone feels like they don't have time or expertise to actually exercise freedom of choice with regard to technology and instead cling mindlessly to whatever everyone else seems to be doing?
When does enough become enough?
Microsoft servers (or workstations for that matter) stable? Thats an oxymoron like an honest politician. I have dozens of clients with UNIX and Novell servers that are basically set it and forget it. Literally, One Novell server was up and running untouched for 4 years, let me repeat that 4 YEARS !!! If you can get any M$ box to run for more than a couple of months without have to reboot it it's a miracle (Or wait you can't considering everytime you patch you need to reboot and patches are out every couple of weeks) Let's not forget about that wonderful GUI copy command and it's inability to handle errors, they have only had 15 years to fix it. SP2 has and will continue to wreak havoc, wether it be through user ignorance or software compatibility issues (lost count of how many users got BSOD or software quit working after installing it) Many vertically specific apps STILL dont support SP2. As a consultant with over 500 active clients all I can say "Bring it on baby, JOB SECURITY! I don't go looking for clients, they come looking for me:-)"
Well, what a surprise, Another /. post that could have been interesting buggered by the non MS crowd and the ill informed.
SP2 IS of immense use to all users of Windows XP (sorry I don't care about what OSX or your flavour of Linux does, why the hell should you be posting on a subject that's MS specific anyway?)
Remember that XP is supplied with most home PC's. And that the majority of the users of those home PC's don't have a clue about the internet, its dangers or what they can do to protect themselves. And these people don't read /. Nor do they change the O/S they use. They don't know how!
Anything that helps the average user from becoming a zombie or stops them from running that nasty email script has to be a good thing. If it comes at the price of a small amount of software working, then I for one am happy to pay that price.
Wining about stuff like in-house software not working or obscure app not working is daft. Most of the time, if the software does not work any more it's because it has flaws that would make it susceptible to exploitation. Upgrade or change it. And if you're in-house developers are too lazy to get off their collective arses and find out why their software wont work, then perhaps they are in the wrong profession.
As for MS forcing SP2 on users. So what? The majority of people they are trying to help don't even know they need help.