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
This is particularly nice when one of the execs is on the road somewhere, and his laptop starts downloading the service pack while he is dialed in via modem. Assuming he stays connected long enough for it to download (which is likely, since now that his connection is really really slow it takes longer to read email) the patch autoinstalls and breaks things? Sweet!
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
If it is just downloaded and not installed?
"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.
Doesn't this seem insane to anyone? I'm not exactly a "Microsoft hater" like many of the people around here, but this sort of thing doesn't make much sense to me. If someone wants to block the download of something exclusive on the autoupdater in Windows, there should be no circumventing it by the company. This should apply in any situation (including the way Steam updates itself, even though I'm sure it's incompatible otherwise). Meh, the general shadiness of it just rubs me the wrong way.
schild
editor, f13.net
Anyone using SUS (another MS product) to roll out updates to their client computers has another layer of defense against unwanted updates. The adminstrator decides what updates get published to the clients, and they retrieve updates from an internal server.
Read More
Nothing to see here
Every Enterprise that uses a Windows network should have their own SUS or something more sophisticated to manage the patches that are deployed.
with this you can control what patches are deployed and when
There's something wrong with my PC (probably the last "Repair Windows" I did) that makes it unbootable when I install SP2. I guess I'll have to turn AutoUpdate off... It was nice having all the updates installed automatically though...
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Thats why clever administrators will be using MS SUS Server. A free MS product that lets administrators choose when patches get pushed out.
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.
That's interesting that they list Photoshop CS 8.0 among the programs that don't work with SP2. I happen to have used this version of Photoshop on several machines running SP2 without any problems whatsoever.
SP2 IS A PIG!!!
I have a question. Is there any compelling reason why shouldn't remove it?
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."
Come on people, you have had time to get ready for this.
/250 machines, all XP have been SP2 for months since I flipped the switch in WUS //99.5% spyware free ///Properly implemented and secured Windows network
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
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.
Granted, this was on a trailing-edge machine, but SP2 made copy to the clipboard crash the system every time, for every app. That's a pretty major screw-up in my book.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In Soviet Russia, software updates you.
Of course, companies using the software in question could simply tell their emplyees not to installl SP2...
heh... of the programs known not to work*, included is Microsoft's own VirtualPC.
(ok, technically the page says it will work, but will be much slower than before Sp2)
If you don't want your machine automatically updated, get this, turn off automatic updates!
Now wasn't that easy?
Le français vous intéresse?
Disconnect your computer from the internet. It can't download SP2 then. Problem solved!
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
You can still block automatic updates. I was blocking mine for ever because I didn't want to have the "latest and greatest" fix as usually they broke something else.
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 it wouldn't work with some highly specialized/critical software.
Is any of this surprising? No. I don't know why it's been spun as "shocking" at most media outlets.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
C'mon Timothy. This was posted in Febuary
-gjr
Just so you know. I've used it on SP2 with no problems, other than it won't run Knoppix 3.6 (i think?) right (there's no titlebars, like the WM is having some serious problems).
For context, click Parent.
"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!"
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.
I think it might have something to do with power management, that the system spins the drive down, but does not spin it up, but even disabling all power management in the OS didn't help.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
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."
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.
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.
I'm at work (win2k) but if i remember correctly all you have to do to fix most of the problems is enable the program to make rpc calls or shut down the firewall that comes w/ sp2.
If you read the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875357/ To unblock the program, click Unblock this program in the Security Alert dialog box, and then click OK. Sounds like most users can handle that. Not sure about the BSOD, that sounds like shitty code to me.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
The list fails to mention that most of my spyware no longer runs.
:(
I upgraded expecting to continue having all the parasites and tracking that I am used to
liqbase
Apple screwed up. When I was in school, all we had were Apple IIgs's and Macs. If Apple would have been smart everyone would have been buying Macs. But Apple cost two or three times as much as a PC, and had much less software. I will say this much, the people working in the Mac departments tend to know their product better than people in the PC department.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The shit has hit the fan.
Say hello to my little sig.
learn w4at mistake5 to have regular
Many of our customers have come in needing computer repairs because they said "that big microsoft patch" messed up their system. As usual, at least 90% of the couple hundred computers I've seen since SP2 came out had problems because their kid was downloading the pr0n or using KaZaA. Their computers were just crawling to a standstill. With SP2, Norton AntiVirus 2005, Microsoft AntiSpyware Installed and running all the time, only a couple of the computers have come back with problems. And yet again, it was because junior can't stop surfing the bad sites.
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)
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.)
Indeed, for users who have (wisely) set Automatic Update to prompt for the selection of updates to be downloaded and be noticed when they are ready to be installed, they will be prompted every bloody day for SP2! So Automatic Update shall have to be turned off and they'll have to visit Windows Update every other day ... :-(
(Disclaimer: I haven't got the guts to install the SP2 update, I have only installed Windows XP SP2 streamlined systems from scratch -- understand I must be one of the most unlucky people around; e.g. I chose to try Linux just when the SUSE installer prevented from booting into Windows on dual-boot!)
Both Clearcase and Norton2003 will not work. Of course we want to stop all employees from being able to continue working on their coding projects as well as open up all computers to any and all viruses that exist out there...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I also had a pirated copy of WIndows -- I think all of them were, including the one that came with my first PC.
I made the switch. I use Fedora Core 3, which seems to make a nice desktop. Hello, Gimp, goodbye Photoshop.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Haha! I just installed Service Pack 2 and everything is working gr [Client Disconnected]
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. This is simply not a true statement. A few programs will not start, but they won't Blue Screen the OS.
If anyone who doesn't want/need virus scanning or has a hardware firewall is finding the "security centre" nags annoying, they can be turned off under services...
:-)
It you apps don't work any more, see if they run under wine
Also, there is a legal tool going around to change the maximum number of outgoing TCP connection imposed (only 50(!) by default), so you can keep using bittorent.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
does anyone have any details/numbers about people giving up on windows pc and switching to macs?
That nearly all the programs on that list are very old, or already have updates for SP2. Hey what the hell, it's Microsof so lets bash them anyways. Sp2 does a LOT of good things for the average Joe in protecting him from his own stupidity. ---- test ----
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
Thanks for the present, Microsoft. Can I return it for something better?
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
Because I don't have the disk space for it.
01/20/09
That's why you don't depend on Microsoft to push stuff down to you. I've been using a Windows SUS server and I blocked all clients from getting updates that create conflicts and problems with other packages.
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 don't think these "hordes" are really materializing. MS is far more worried about linux than Apple. When's the last time MS even mentioned Apple? No real threat to them, Apple's marketshare hasn't really taken a big jump. To disclose: I own a powerbook, so no accusations of being a Wintel zealot, please.
MS's biggest competition - and their biggest problem for non-server machines - continues to be their own old versions. I'm not sure how a forced XP update to SP2 will convince 2K or even '98 users to upgrade from their current versions to XP.
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.
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.
Give it up. The slashbots don't understand humor.
Microsoft knows that there's a lot software (some new, like PS CS) that will not work when the patch is autoinstalled. This is something they know will cause problems for system admins.
d efault.mspx
This is why they provided a tool for system admins to control the updates delivered to their machines.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sus/
Imagine a whole graphics department (company) running Photoshop CS and XP. They would essentially be put out of business. Is Microsoft's EULA tight enough to stave off the public when this happens? A buffer overflow exploit doesn't wave a big blue screen in your face when you try and run your favorite app.
If nothing else, MS tends to be good at hiding failures from the public. A scary looking bright blue screen is not hidden.
-- Tim
Bad Windows problem.
My helpsvc.exe keeps growing and growing and taking up tens of megs of RAM!
Don't tell me they're going to make me get SP2 to fix it???
Yes!!!? What can I do?
Hey, now, this is how /. editors should do their work! 3 stories joined (coherently) togheter about the same subject! way to go. This way I like reading slashdot and, well, telling friends abot this website =o)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yeah, I mean by "grok" do you mean "brought him a soda" or "gave him a blow job"? According to the original book, it could mean both.
:)
Alternately, it could just mean that you really understood him, on a deep and intimate level.
looking at that list, i can assume that updates are available for most of them, if not all that will render it usable with SP2.
i personally have several of those programs on my computers and they've been working fine and i have yet to see a BSOD.
that includes:
PhotoShop CS 8.0
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal 5.0
Norton AntiVirus 2003
Pinnacle Studio 9
ZoneAlarm 5.5
HD Trailers
VirtualPC: When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine.
So, it'll be just like if you were running Windows XP on a PC then?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
dude i feel for you , you even beat him by like 1 whole minute....
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
Yes!
Also, given what I've heard about how MS bends over backwards to ensure backwards compatibility, it's obvious that anything they break, they intended to screw over...
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...
You need to make sure you use the services manager to disable the windows update service (and stop it too!). Not only will that prevent it from doing any kind of update... but it prevents a few random crashes that their update utility itself seems to cause (at least, so sayeth the event log).
Also, although it should be obvious, disable all the remote registry stuff and remote administration stuff. If any of that is enabled, it can turn the other services back on. Frequently, MS patches will re-enable things you shut off... so make sure you re-check whenever a patch does get applied.
Having said that, Microsoft is an interesting game. You have to either embrace them and keep your system 100% up to date, or choose a point in time and never update ANYTHING beyond that point. I've found if you update every day, major bugs do get fixed -- just more new ones show up. The show-stoppers usually don't stick around too long. The worst thing you can do is update every few months... because you're likely to exchange one set of bugs for another worse set that you'll have to live with for months.
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. ;-)
The update, much like the "Critical Potentially Unwanted Software remover" requires that you agree to it's license to install it.
I can confirm this, as I went to a client site (to repair a laptop screen) and checked the ever present (for that user) "You Have Updates waiting to be installed" dialogue. The computer was set for auto-update (by me) and did not install SP2 automatically. It seems that you need to agree to it's license to instll, therefore will not be installed by users who "do not know what the flashy alert thingy was, and so left it alone."
What services have been screwed up or acted flaky on your computer since installing SP2?
For my computer:
* command-line ftp allows me to login to a remote site, then hangs whenever I try and do any type of file listing or transfer
* eMule always logs me on with a lowID, even if I plug the computer directly into the cable modem
* Windows Firewall is now "corrupt" and refuses to start the service.
Anybody else?
"When you run a Windows XP SP2-based virtual machine, it will perform slowly compared to a Windows XP SP1-based virtual machine."
My 1.25 Ghz G4 takes 25 seconds to open a webpage in Firefox in WinXP SP2 though VPC.
Time to do an upgrade that is actually a downgrade to SP1.
I guess it's not the first time that two products made by Microsoft did not play will with EACH OTHER.
Unlike children from the same parents who get along with each other, Microsoft apps sometimes act like distant cousins who only see each other at during the holidays and who end up tearing at each others' hair before the presents are even opened.
WE should gladly accept updated that breaks critical software whenever M$ wants. I mean, why should consumers want to use the tool(computer and OS) instead of just sitting there looking at the pretty desktop.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
SuiteSisterMary contributed the italicized text:
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.
Agreed. But this is my biggest gripe about the constant refrain from the Microsoft crowd regarding integration with the OS. Microsoft will berate other OSs for not having the tight coordination between the software and hardware developer community that they enjoy. Their conclusion, therefore, is that the lack of integration is sign of poor design.
The fact that some vendors may have been unwilling or unable to actually do anything with it all is beside the point.
No argument here. Now if we could just get Microsoft to get past that piece of FUD we could all go back to discussing the real merits of a computing platform.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Anyone using XP has had 8 months to fix compatibility problems, or figure out a way to keep SP2 off of their machines.
If they can't figure it out in that amount of time, then they have bigger problems.
I just get tired of (and have worked for) companies that keep duct-taping their outdated, fucked-up software rather than spend some money and fix it.
I just love the way that sp2 keeps SAV clients from being about to be managed from the server...
yes, security is important, just as long as it's from M$
USR is most definitely NOT a fictional company.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Before this gets out of hand, let it be known that SP2 is only downloaded it is not installed.
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
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.
Photoshop CS runs fine on my XP SP2 64-bit processor machine.
I'm, uh, not ready I guess. I have a Mac.
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.
Check out a comprehensive listing of third-party products that might have compatibility issues under XPSP2. "Breaking critical software?" Hardly. Almost a full year has gone by to allow the third-party companies time to being their products up to speed so they will function correctly under XPSP2. IMHO that's enough time.
What the hell is going on? When did slashdot start defending anything by MS. Come on people, SP2 sucks, linux is better...blah..blah...nazi bastards pushing SP2 down our throats and breaking my old ass apps... Shutup and patch it's good for you.
Suggested New Title for this article:
Ready or not, patch your fucking computer, you incompetent nimrod.
It's a service pack, it fixes bugs, its a required update if you want support in the future.
If it breaks a program or driver, guess what, I'm going to bet someone didn't follow the programming guidelines for the OS.
The blame should be placed on the developer of the app and the end-user for using uncertified software, not Microsoft. MS put a program in place to avoid this (Windows certification), the end-user ignores it, and then it's someone else's fault when it breaks.
Why do you let users use the Windows AutoUpdate feature in the first place?
/. makes another mountain out of an MSFT molehill. There are dozens of ways to block SP2 if you really need to.
Similarly, if you don't want users updating their Gentoo boxes, because you have a specific version of some library installed, and an emerge -u world will screw everything up, don't put the users in the Portage group.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
For those of us who have configured Windows Update to "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them", will SP2 automatically be installed? Or is there some other mechanism for blocking that they're referring to?
how will I read your post on how to get the internet back???
I have installed sp2 on two laptop and since then ,even withe firewall turned off, ican no longer ping the machines and cant remote in with either pc anywhere or Dameware.
But..we also have a bunch of laptop that came with xp sp2 and i have no problems with them.
Anybody have a clue?
Sure, it would be nice if more vendors had fixed their software in the past 3/4 of a year, but that's really not such a terribly long time--you can't expect all of them to have done it. Besides, this is a service pack--I've always thought that a major distinctions between patches/services packs and new versions is that there is a much lower tolerance for incompatibilities in SP's. If anyone complains when longhorn comes out and it breaks some apps, they'd have a much weaker argument than those who complain about the SP.
The way I see it, this problem comes down to a general philosophical opposition to open standards and api's at MS. As a web developer, I see these problems all the time. MS refuses to use web standards in IE, therefore web developers are forced to work with what they have. The result is nonsensical code that doesn't follow any type of guideline, whether open or belonging to MS. That's a big part of why there hasn't been a new version of IE for so long -- MS knows that anything they come out with will break all of that makeshift pseudo-html that's out there. I'm not a windows programmer, but I'd imagine that while the specific problems those guys run into are different, they stem from the same root causes.
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.
We have updated your computer with the latest version to protect you from harm. Your account has been adjusted. To protect you, we have included Digital Rights Management features which will allow you to properly view authorized media. Should you wish to purchase authorized media, your media player will point you to authorized media vendors online. The next version of Windows will be delivered to your Personal Computer* and your account will be adjusted appropriately in the next few months. Thank you for using Windows XP, the only alternative.
* By "your Personal Computer" we really mean the personal computer that you purchased which we now control.
Knight37 - Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer
The BSODs that could occur during software install would be limited to those programs that install some sort of driver (ring 0). Antivirus software, firewall software, CD-Burning software would all be *theoretically* susceptible. Of course, this also means that games which install the infamous anti-piracy/DRM driver could be affected.
So only 1 in 24 computers running WinXP has installed SP2? I'm seriously not trolling here, but shouldn't that be considered a minor success for Microsoft's update features? I would think that in the heyday of Nimda/Code Red/etc, they would have almost been pleased with that many PCs being patched!?
...about monolithic patches.
If they really cared about their users being able to apply patches and have a secure system, they would create smaller patches against individual Windows subsystems that a user could mix and match accordingly.
Instead, they insist on releasing ONE mega-patch containing security patches, slipstreamed feature updates, and other items not related to security.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Win NT/95/98/ME/2K
methinks that SP2 will be a small roadbump in the path of botnets and various other nasties
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I don't see how you can blame the vendors for this. Fact is, the reason that software breaks in unpredictable ways is because windows closed API's act unpredictably. The full details are never published, so therefore incompatibilities for future versions can be very difficult to predict.
Um, that's why they are closed? There's a perfectly good list of API's you are supposed to use. Quick tip, they are not the ones you are have to reverse engineer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used it with success for a while, and then my computer just refused to boot. At first it seemed to be a video card issue, but I wiped and reinstalled Windows and SP1 worked fine, my card's drivers installed and worked fine, I installed all available updates with no problems...
and then I installed SP2 and the blue screen issue came back
Fuck it
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.
SP2 must have gotten some really bad press in order to achieve numbers that low; it's not just anti-Microsoft slashdot readers who dislike SP2 after all.
For a mainstream OS, I'd imagine that most Joe Users who bother to update think that an update is automatically better and will download it regardless of what it does.
Not only does this mean that major Windows-using businesses have been avoiding SP2, but that many Joe Users don't bother with Windows Update at all, though I suppose that's obvious.
Hopefully MS will take SP2's failure to catch on to heart and do a better job with Longhorn...
I love to work on computers, it's not only my hobby but my profession. I would LOVE to get into Apple systems but until I can piece buy the parts I want and upgrade anything like on a PC I'm not going near them.
Even with M$ A PC can be had for MUCH cheaper than an APPLE, even with the mini out there.
I find it interesting that so many people complain that the /. readership is overly anti-Microsoft. Has anyone other than me noticed that every Microsoft related thread is flooded by people either defending MS or complaining that we are too anti-ms?
./, but I would have the EXACT same reaction if either of those companies forced an update on me that broke services or programs that I use often. If they can't come up with a way to fix the security holes without breaking software then give people a choice.
Anyway, more to the point, I cannot believe the audacity of Microsoft at forcing and update to SP2. I laud them for attempting to fix the security holes that have been so prevalent, but the way to do it is NOT by breaking popular software that many people use. Yes, I know that many of the problems were only for 64-bit version, but many companies and probably a significant number of individuals either currently use or are moving to 64-bit processors. The corporate mindset that allows Microsoft to force this non-backwards compatible update on users is not acceptable.
I'll admit that I'm a fan of Apple and Google, seemingly the two poster children of
A good, user centric approach to software maintenance DOESN'T force people to break what they use. If this is how they want to do business, goodbye Microsoft, I'll read about you from my Mac.
If I am not mistaken, it will only install if Automatic updates are turned on.
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.
Notice one of the software listed on the incompatibilities list:
;-)
Encyclopedia Britannica 2000 Deluxe 1
Encyclopedia Britannica 32-bit and 64-bit (NX)
http://www.encyclopediabritannica.com
Java rendering does not function after you install this program.
well, how fucking convenient. It's Microsoft software, but it's Java that doesn't work
Enjoy an e-piphany
gee, isn't 4/12 three days before taxes are due (in the US)? what if SP2 breaks my tax software?
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.
has an update available from the vendor you simply need to download and install.
It aboslutely boggles my mind that the parent (currently) sits at +4, Insightful. All the Slashbots proclaim that it is a good thing that Linux distros come with 100+ text editors. Meanwhile, "One Word Processor Ought To Be Enough For Anybody" is modded up as insightful. Sometimes Slashdot seems so fucking bipolar.
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
Ummm, check out the real deal. These are their supposedly "closed API's." The fact that the source code used to build their OS is closed doesn't mean that the programming interfaces to work with their OS are as well. Big difference. I'm not getting into the fact that Microsoft can/has purposely changed their software in order to break competitor products (or at the least make them look subpar). But it's not like these companies have sat in a dark, closed room for almost a year being totally unable to bring their products up to speed.
Now that's a user base you really dont want to anger.
Completely unacceptable. Breaking one of the best RTS's ever made is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
Noone's gonna read this, but that's completely out of line.
My little site.
You bitch if it's broken; you bitch when they fix it. Is there any way to win with some of you guys?
And, what other company would go so far as to test with so many other vendors' products and then publish a list of those products that are broken.
Also try to keep in mind that it's not Microsoft's fault that a SW product won't run. It's the vendor of the product.
Using non-microsoft antivirus or firewalls.
Uhhhh... If I knew I couldn't peice buy part to upgrade my G4 Cube I wouldn't have done so... As it was: 450 Mhz G4, DVD-ROM drive, 256MB RAM, 20GB drive, ATI Rage 128 Upgraded with: 1.4 Ghz G4 w/ 2MB L3 Caches, 2X Superdrive (DVD-R, -RW, and -RAM), 1 GB RAM and 120GB 7200RPM drive, ATI Radeon 9000...and still all in a 9" acrylic cube. It could have easily lasted me a few more years if you hadn't told me it couldn't be upgraded.
I don't see how you can ignore the above fact -- it's all interrelated. MS's competitors cannot survive unless they can write windows software that's on par with what MS themselves write. That simply can't be done without going beyond the published API's.
It's like saying that GWB is an environmentalist because he talks a lot about hydrogen. Sure, he talks the talk, but everyone who knows a thing or two about environmentalism knows he's just skirting the issue. Sometimes a token effort is worse than doing nothing, because it muddles things up.
MS may talk a lot about allowing comptetition by publishing their API's, but unless it's a complete and thorough documentation of ALL API's, it just doesn't fly in my book. I don't think anyone is arguing that, for example, a windows open office programmer has all the benefits of a MS office programmer. Part of MS's business model is to keep a little piece of everything just for themselves. As long as they continue to do business that way, they'll never have a truly reliable platform.
Yes, and if you stick to using those published APIs you will never be able to achieve the features and integration that a competing Microsoft product does. Good luck with that.
Random and weird software I've written.
hahahahahahaha, you so veddy funny.
Like in life, Microsoft API docs are full of shades of grey. In this case, let's say white is things working how microsoft says they work, black is absolutely nothing working as documented, and the spectrum in between is where all their API's live. I believe the *'FULL DETAILS'* aren't even necessarily understood by microsoft: like any other progs, they've got too much to do, too little time, and too little time to backtrack, refactor, clean and document. And as the old saw goes, I choose to not attribute to evil what can be explained by incompetence (or distractions, laziness, or pointy-haired bosses).
Dig into WinCE's API, or MFC or any other published microsoft code, and you'll see plenty of supporting evidence. 3rd party coders would have to be psychic to anticipate which way things'll break due to a new SP.
and i see no problems at all, i even have lots of audio and graphics apps and i see no problems at all
we're all using Linux.
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?
Take a look at that list; mainly firewall programs, routing programs, and spyware stuff. HMMM anybody else smell something fishy?
Most companies don't WANT their software to break under SP2 or screw their customers. Most of them wrote their software to work under XP. Now MS has changed the specs on them. And they have to fix it. That's time and money for something that they didn't consider was broken. And by the way they have to fix it soon according to MS timetables or their customers will start screaming at them.
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.
For a small company with limited development staff, it's always about resources. By blocking the SP2 update, they thought that they buying themselves some time. Now MS has decided time is up. My company wrote some internal code that was XP compliant. The problem is that most of the authors are no longer with the company due to normal attrition. Yes we have the source code, but on top of the bazillion things that is demanded of our development team, they have to change code that was stable and relatively bug-free.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Firefox will be one of the apps that "doesn't work".
People rag on XP and it's multiple bugs all the time. But what about OSX??
Number of releases of XP/32bit: three. (Original, SP1, SP2).
Number of releases of OSX: thirty. From original 10.0 to the latest 10.3.8 there have been thirty versions - over four years, that's an average of one release every seven weeks. Anyone tired of upgrading yet??
I always knew microsoft controlled my companies firewall...
Before installing SP2, I backuped my stuff (favorites, emails, etc), then I used nLite to make a bootable install CD of XPSP2 with things removed like support for TabletPC that I do not need, and upgraded drivers for my video card and printer, directly into it. Then I booted on the CD and did a fresh install copy of XPSP2, it is very solid, no problem with it.
How many people do u know running PhotoShop CS on the beta 64-bit Windows XP?? I just wish people would read the whole article before making stupid comments!
ipchains -A output -d windowsupdate.com -j REJECT
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Of the 265 posts I can see all but one modded 2+ is pro-Windows. Weird. Has Slashdot changed that much?
It's too late to be paranoid about computers in this day and age, because the complexity has grown beyond the grasp of any one mind; if people really want to know what's on your system they'll find a way to get at it. Just accept the invasion of privacy that is assumed when fire up a computer.
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.
Is it just me or does everyone realize that MS takes a pounding whichever way it turns. If they tighten security the get hammered. If they don't address security, or have current security issues, they get slammed
I think most people today are forgetting a fundamental rule. You must make tradeoffs on the scale of security vs. usability. If you want a more secure environment you must limit the amount of access that is allowed (user, app, process, etc.)MS is struggling a bit now to find that sweet spot. But, if one takes into account that security being treated as a major issue at MS for only about 3 years they've come a long way. Consider that fact that they had to go back to 9x, NT 4 and 2000 and address issues as well as ship a consumer OS (on an NT Kernel) and server OS at the same time is quite a feat in my book.
MS has drawn a line in the sand with the release of XP SP2. Going forward, most need to understand that the changes made in SP 2 are not to stifle the user. Instead, they are created to set a bar for future releases of third party software and set expectations on how to build their apps. Granted, it kinda sucks now that some apps won't work but I'd rather have that happen now and take the hit to have improved security in the future.
OpenSource is only free if your time isn't worth anything
If someone like H&R Block, or the IRS, took a major tank when this is done?
You'd have sons of bitches in the stockades for not paying their taxes, and you'd have other poor bastards that suddenly owed $3,000,000 dollars in backtax.
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad I filed way back in the first half of February and already have my return.
Thats all fine and dandy, but unfortunately some companies can't upgrade their software due to financial constraints or simply because they are forced by some other party into using that software. We run into this problem at my office. We use the Rational Tool Set, for bad or worse, we are forced by the client to use the version we are currently at, which breaks under SP2. Luckily we have a SUS server at work, and the machines are protected otherwise so not installing SP2 isn't that much of a security risk for us.
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.
Maybe you'd have a point if this were anytime before 2001. Instead you sound very dated.
Slightly off topic, but all this fuss about "SP2" made me seriously ask the question "what ever happened to version numbers?" Seems to me that people would not be making such a big deal about incompatabilies if Microsoft made a clear distinction between software upgrades (new version), and patches to existing versions. More specifically, when a "service pack" changes things such that other software might become in compatable, it should be a new version of the OS, i.e. Windows XP version 1.2. That way companies could standardize on a certain version of, say, WIndows XP, and only install security updates for that version. This 7 year (or whatever it is) product lifecycle without a major official version change is just stupid. They tried to some kind of versioning with Windows 98 by releasing "second edition" but that caused nothing but confusion. Was it really a new version or just the old version with all the updates applied?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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
All computers in the same company, that's a very unreliable sample of what's out there,
since a lot of the software is the same.
What if everyone in a company uses corel wordperfect?
How many home computers have a firewall or antivirus from the list of problem software?
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.
WSUS (nee WUS) isn't out of beta yet and MS will not support it in production, as they state in bold letters on their web site.
SUS is still the supported the "current" product.
The sooner those machines have SP2, the sooner the zombie percentage will decrease. I know, Windows sucks, but... those zombies are affecting us ALL. SPAM, hacks, cracks, phishing attacks, DNS attacks, etc.
Let's hope that 24% increases soon.
I've already turned your firewall off, thanks.
"Microsoft has published a list of known software that will not work with Service Pack 2"
Microsoft also announced their new motto--
What Do You Want to Break Today? (tm)
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Very good idea the mention this EULA thing.
As far as I know, the EULA you must accept to install SP2 includes your agreement to let MS infest your machine with DRM mechanisms.
This alone, if verified, should rule out SP2 for any sane individual.
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:-)"
It's not that I don't like playing games on the computer. I just find it annoying that after upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows XP that half of my games no longer worked. Than after upgrading to SP2 that the other half don't work as well.
Not to mention that other older programs like a geneology program my dad liked to use which now it doesn't work in XP.
Not all of us have the latest hardware to play the latest games on. I still have a 600 Celeron with 256 MB of ram. I don't have the money to be spending on a gig of ram just so I can run my games and my operating system at the same time.
I don't know about you but I get tired of upgrading half my software when ever Microsoft comes out with a new SP. Not to mention having to buy newer games. I still like my older games.
I got tired of it and started playing on my brother's Xbox.
Can't find a KB article, but then MS's KB search is fairly annoying. So how about user reports instead?
t ml?p=231678
5 50.html
http://extremetechsupport.org/forum/showthread.ph
http://www.codecomments.com/archive299-2005-2-409
As for "can't be proven/disproven", you're the one who's full of crap. It's easily "proven". Come over to my place, I'll turn the security center back on, disable those alerts, reboot, and you can bloody well watch it continue to alert me.
If you mean that you can't "prove" it by sitting on your ass and spouting off shit you know absolutely nothing about, then yeah, you have a point.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
How conspicuous.
The Internet is full. Go away.
Or I'd be crapping my pants right now.
I know I'd get pulled into the helpdesk fracas that would ensue if we were all in WinXP.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
Why is Microsoft so hot to get SP2 installed on everyone's machine?
...What can we break today?
-- my sig got
Do they get their updates under this, because that would be funny.
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.
Oh there are alternatives... no one ever said there weren't. In fact, if there weren't,
the entire antitrust case levied by the EU would hold water. The point is, there are
alternatives, it's the level to which they tie together and the symmetry of their
operations that makes them more valuable than the other servers available for Unix and
Linux operating systems.
Who the hell wants a database, firewall, commerce development system, etc... that don't
link together seamlessly and are all manageable using the same interface from anywhere!
I don't! I don't want a firewall that doesn't link to my database server with zero
effort. I don't want an XML data management system that has no seamless capability to
pull and push data to that database server while maintaining security through said
firewall... No thank you... I prefer the tied together system.
It is that 'tying' that does NOT exist anywhere outside the Windows world.
Me thinks there's gonna be a whole lotta Splodin' goin' on that day. Should be at least as fun as that why-too-kay thang.
Some settling may occur during posting.
MSN Messenger is now written in .NET and compiled with the "safe" flag turned on. So you know it's ok!
Let I be the first(?) to say that XP SP2 has caused no problems in my organization. Just now our mutlihomed bridges are being upgr.J,I*W [Carrier Lost]
If people are so scared of a "bandwith hit", why dont they just install a transparent proxy? This way, the service pack only gets downloaded ONCE, and is later distributed over your LAN, without disturbing "real" internet traffic. I've been using this method for ages now, and all users are really happy about being able to update their OS faster. Furthermore, this will also reduce WAN traffic by big heaps.
I'm sat here with nothing to do on my Linux and UNIX servers... Can someone fo a UNIX FOSS port of SP2 please? I want to see what all the fuss is about?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
install a pirate copy of windows. SP2 won't install there (or so I've been told... I don't use pirate windows of course - I use linux :)
Go hug some trees.
The day I install SP2 is the can I cannot play Metal Marines.
If battling in Edmonton isn't worthy enough, then what is?
and it would be emacs.
nothing more, nothing less.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
BTW Greetings Wokshop - a MS product, will produce a "I am having trouble with a database" error after applying SP2.
It's old but I liked it's simplicity. I since moved it over to an old 98 PC I use for TV.
Look, I don't LOVE Microsoft, but SP2 has been out for, what, 3/4 of a year now? And betas were out even earlier. If you currently sell a product that doesn't work in SP2, then SHAME ON YOU!!!
Good Lord, what Micky Mouse development projects are you working on these days? 9 months a long time? Give us a break, considering 80% of software development effort goes into developing very large bespoke solutions your argument holds very little water.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
nt
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Business Profiles while on Apple's site and obviously a marketing spun message does show that many things I would consider 'verticle' like a Doctor's Office, Legal Office, Dentist Office, Architect, and many others are shown on what they use/how they use it and how it takes little to no IT staff to do it.
Granted this is targeted at a small or medium business so I don't think a Fortune 500 is going to tank Windows in a day but it does show that a lot of geek 'truisms' about Mac in the office are a bit outdated.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
you've got SIXTEEN HUNDRED dollars to spend?
I just spent $3600. - on a $23,000 cat-ketch two masted 26' foot sailboat.
For my PC, I built a P4 for $400. and it is GREAT. I apply Le Linux.
Now, we live in a country where most people I know can not afford health insurance. $1600. for a box is a HUGE amount of money. AND - you are BullSh---ting about the $500. mini being usable as is.
Keep It real, Bubba. Keep it real.
MACS - great machines for people with too much money.
He's OSX fnord Apple on to us... we'll have to fnord fall back to a more secure channel OSX.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Microsoft these days is primarily a sustaining engineering organization, which is causing untold grief internally. Some internal numbers peg the amount of engineering resources devoted to sustaining engineering and backwards-compatability support at 70% of their total engineering resources. This is the reason innovation has crawled to a halt at the mighty software factory. In forcing users to lurch ahead and get off of older platforms, the theory is that they can reduce the burden of support on the organization and devote more to new technology. Fat chance, I say. There was a situation a year or so ago that required about 60 lines of code to be modified. The test effort was estimated at 200 man-years. And you wonder why they are forcing everyone to a single platform???
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
i reported about this back in december
Anyone with the ability to apply the original policy blocking SP2 has the ability to simply turn off Automatic Updates in their enterprise. And AU isn't doing them much good anyway, because most patches coming down the pipe depend on SP2 anyway.
So why all the complaining? This is just FUD.
iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 -d 207.46.0.0/16 -j REJECT
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"Those who actually paid attention to the WHOLE list know that PhotoShop CS only fails to start under XP SP2 on 64-bit processors" I have a athlon64 and photoshop cs, and it runs fine! Actually, it runs super fast. Is it not about time yous die hard linux geeks give microsof a break. After all, linux is the most unfriendly os out there. Even kde sucks. I'm not saying there perfect, but at the end of the day, they have an operating system that is actually useable for the average user. and....SP2 is bloody good!
seems to be a lot of anti-virus and firewall products on the 'incompatable software' list.
I can't be the only one who first read that as "innundated with [mallard]-ware"...
> s/borrow/steal/
Not necessarily. If the software was borrowed like a book is borrowed---i.e., the friend is no longer using it so it's still single-user---then "borrow" is precisely the right term.
I don't think you've looked at Apple Remote Desktop which is quite powerful and can deploy apps.
1. Software Distribution
2. Asset Management
3. Remote Administration
4. Remote Assistance
On the unix\linux side there have been tools like Radmind (also for Mac OSX), synctree, roboinst. You seem quite fond of the Microsoft offerings. In reality our university has many systems. We have different camps and on the Windows camp I've seen major issues regarding security and problems deploying Windows applications using SMS and Active Directory. Last summer it took eleven weeks for one person to repackage 80 MCAD and ECAD applications for the Windows loadset, the same 80 CAD applications took only two weeks to repackage and deploy with a Linux loadset. As for reliability Windows servers and workstations are poor and their down time high compared to the Sun, HP-UX and Linux workstations on campus. The great thing about Windows is that it needs to employ more people than necessary and the inefficiency guarantees job security.
Large enterprise with heterogeneous environment can use LANDesk Management Suite to manage their Windows, Mac, Linux, Palm, Blackberry systems.
It's laughable people even try to make claims like this when the lengths Microsoft go to preserving legacy compatibility are not only well known, but also one of the main reasons they have so many "problems" with their software in the first place.
I'm surprised I haven't seen a modded post about this mistake. In the list, the Photoshop CS website is listed as http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html but it goes somewhere Completely different.
What concoction do you have to drink in order to mix those two up? There's not even anything from bitdefender on the list...
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
My main point here is, as a power user, I think it totally sucks that the admin of my network could remotely change/control my machine without me ever giving them permission. Which of course I know they can just take the machine back and they read/scan all my email anyways, so its not like they can't get what they want from my system... but it just seems wrong that they can turn off features to a system that I have administrative rights on... and that they could do it remotely. It is annoying, because I know that could not happen if I was running linux or mac os x. Of course, I could reinstall windows XP (oh joy!), to unfudge this... but I am too busy to get involved in a BU and restore... so my wintel system is effectively botched. I hope that once April 12th, passes I will be able to regain access to windows update, and I can get things worked out. But I am still left with the realization for the first time just how hosed windows is... it is insecure because of SUS. Sure it is great for admins... but if I want that kind of control, and it's my company, then I give my people dumb terminals or a full scale client/server system. Something that can be done far more easily/cheaply with linux/mac osx/unix. As it is now, even though they can control my system I can still hork it on my own (as I have)... either because they made a mistake or I found a weakness by accident.
Does anybody knows what happend to the user who still did not want or did not able to download it, because of some reason: - They who have slow dialup connections. - They who use pirated version, which did not allow to install SP2. - They did not want to download SP2 and install. - They who did not online Do this windows XP will still be able to operate or Not ? If NOT, is that at 12 April is the Disaster day ? In my opinion Microsoft must stop the pirated version in this time. Just my 2c.
Our company works with a lot of Graphics companies and of course Mac is their workstation of choice. They love the Linux servers a whole lot better that then Windows servers they replaced.
Personally I think it is a good idea the Mac stays focused on building a great workstation.
Yes yes I do know you can run them as a server. Still in the business world there are workstations and then there are servers they all play their role. Why build all that in a platform meant to be a workstation? For one thing Mac users would be paying for things they may never use.
Really give Novell OES a try it sees Macs as just another Linux workstation. If you looking for a replacement for ISA then take a good look at SmoothWall's products. We dumped ISA two years and I am Sooooo! grateful! Matter of fact Novell's equivelent of Operation Manager (ZenWorks) will manage Windows, Macs and Linux machines. Operation Manager will only manage Windows machines.
Need help or more information got a question? Contact us. We'd be glad to give you more information on how its done.
So Microsoft started getting bad press because of low adoption numbers, and as a consequence they force everyone to download it. Next we'll see a news story about how SP2 has a 80% applied rate with the other 20% still blocking it, and more pissed off now.
Does the list include Windows XP itself? Service Pack 2 installation hangs my computer in the middle of installation (I've waited for days to see if it continues, but no luck), so I guess it's time to ditch the shit.
Fine, roll out a patch that improves security.
Fine, roll out a patch that breaks some programs and so forces them to use more secure methods.
But a patch that causes some programs to blue screen? To kill the kernel?! Never - it shouldn't even be possible.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
No one needs inventory, asset management, or POS? Perhaps an accounting/receipting system? A lot of places have custom software that covers those functions.
Yay me!
That's the way the mainframe OS that my employer uses is patched -- one subsystem at a time.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
you have the wrong guy mister. That and I'm not a homophobe. My *nix system is fine, I don't need a prettier looking one. Yes I know I'm just feeding a troll.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
My Longhorn Beta still has a config.sys file, with the line BUGS=OFF. You know... Just in case.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Doom 3 runs fine on Linux when using Cedega. Maybe you want to do your research before mouthing off. I finished Doom 3 in 3-4 days on my Fedora Core 2 Linux box.
I can't afford a sig!