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
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.)
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. ;-)
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.
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.
There are lots of reasons - but if you can't find alternatives for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server" that will run on a *NIX you're reading the wrong web site.
.\.\att Clare
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.
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.
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.