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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.)
Thanks for the present, Microsoft. Can I return it for something better?
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
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"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A couple of points...
First, in regards to Mac software in stores, you might want to look a little closer at the PC section, where you'll be surprised to find that some of those CDs work just fine on Macs. Of course, they don't put this in the Mac software section because it also works on PCs. My local MicroCenter, for example, places these sorts of titles in a separate aisle with a little sign in the Mac section saying "More software available in Aisle 13."
I may be wrong but, for example, World of Warcraft ships on a disk (CD or DVD, I don't know) which contains both the Mac and Windows version. Go to the Mac section of a computer store and you probably won't find it. Thus, there's no "World of Warcraft" for Mac.
Second, if you're referring to the sum total of software titles, there can be no argument. There is simply more software available for Windows than Mac. However, if you break it up into categories, you'll find the Mac is pretty well represented in the types of things it can do. However, the names of the companies may not be ones you recognize.
For example, for years I was told that Macs couldn't do accounting because there was no QuickBooks from Intuit (there is now). The fact that there was AccountEdge and probably three or four other products was beside the point--no QuickBooks, no accounting.
That said, I'd also point out that you may have less competition in the Mac market. For example, a few years ago I thought it would be fun to learn some Vietnamese (my roomate is Vietnamese). Not having time for real classes, I figured I'd buy one of those programs that is supposed to teach you the language. On the PC, there were three or four choices. On the Mac? One. Take it, leave it, or write your own.
Where I find the Mac falls short is in software that interfaces with external devices--usually proprietary devices. For example, years ago when I had some money burning a hole in my pocket, I was debating getting an AIBO. Of course, the software to program it was only available for Windows. Another example is some cool software that let me read information off the chip in my car--nope, Windows only. These both sound like fun projects, though, and someday when I don't have paid work all over me, I'd still like to write something to handle it...
The other place is in "brand" software--almost exclusively games. You want to play Doom 3--not some other FPS game. Fun analogy: Everyone else can watch "Three's Company" and all you can watch is "Man of the House." Yeah, it's basically the same show, but...
I won't disagree with you when you say that there is "less software available for the Mac." But short of programming robots, tuning your car, running a sewing machine, or playing the latest "hip" game, you'll probably find that you are fine with a Macintosh.
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.
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.
Only because OSX actually numbers their patches. If WinXP changed a version number every time they patched something, we'd have a lot more than 30.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
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.
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
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.