Survey Shows Admins Avoiding SP2

bonch writes "Tom's Hardware Guide is running an article about Windows XP Service Pack 2 and its limited acceptance by IT administrators. AssetMetrix is cited in the article as reporting that fewer than 24% of over 136,000 Windows XP PCs in 251 North American corporations even had SP2 installed. THG goes on to describe the reasons given by admins and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of installing SP2."

Comments

Re:Security moanings

[coolcold]

Wake me up when Microsoft do the right thing...

please......dont sucide Y_Y

Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why

[nkh]

because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

I know you're a troll but don't you think Microsoft could learn something from Mac OS X design: NO install, just drag and drop the "application" (which has a hidden folder with all the resources necessary) and launch the program! No need to double click icons for installation anymore.

Upgrading to sp2 should be easy:

[Qbertino]

I'd just do this:

apt-get install sp2
or
apt-get update sp2 ...
Oh, wait.
Wrong OS.
Sorry.
Forget about it.

In other news...

[prasado]

Some admins have been seen avoiding Windows XP altogether

Cash Back For Loss Of Features?

[kahanamoku]

I'll switch on SP2 the same day Micro$oft give me back the percentage of money I bought on it in line with the percentage of functionality that is removed from the O/S.

One noticable removal (which is very much a nice-to-have for me) was the FTP Folders that is switched back to the old web directory contents listing after installing SP2.

If there are other FORCED functionality removals that make the O/S useless in certain roles, I very much doubt microsoft are going to refund the product.

Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why

[ErroneousBee]

We have Windows Admins at our site like you. They are so used to one particular way of doing things, I.e. installing off the CD, typing in product keys, setting up firewalls and anti virus, etc that they assume thats the way things work on Linux. They also suffer from an inexplicable blindspot, thinking fedora must be the easiest to use cos its got the biggest market share.

On my home mandrake system, I just type 'urpmi apache2' to install apache2. For fedora there is up2date (I assume its similar).

I find that Linux either makes it unbeleivably easy to install and use things (E.g. Mandrake install, KDE, urpmi), or mindbogglingly difficult (E.g. getting a modem working, installing UT2004 off the CD).

Once you have a bit of experience with both OSes you will be able to appreciate the strenghts and weaknesses of both.

windows people!! ahh!!!

[SQLz]

I've never seen so many Windows people post under one topic before. Talking about "patchin" and "clicking on .exe files". How quaint.

Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why

[tuxforever]

Okay, and how easy is it to update shit on windoze? I seem to remember back in the days when I was an idiot (i.e.: when I used M$ shit) that, to update anything, I had to go to the website of whatever software I had and get the updates myself, double-click my idiot-icon, and pray it didn't bork everything to shit. Now, I type two commands:

emerge --sync
emerge -Davu world

Wow, could it be that doing system administration in Linux is easier? I'm sure your dumbass will come back by saying "But I bet you can't do that with just your mouse!!!!!" Well, unlike most windoze users, I am capable of pressing many buttons in sequence, as opposed to two or three. So piss off noob, and go cry to your fellow know-nothings. Oh yeah, I almost forgot; before you throw windoze update in my face, don't forget that it only works for the O/S, not every application you have installed. Noob.

Frightening revelation for Gates

[ebvwfbw]

I bet it would turn Bill Gates pale if he found out that only 25% of the 136,000 machines still have Windows on them. The rest were upgraded to Linux.