Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: bill
joined:Dec 29, 2003
I've often argued against fixing things that were not broken. I've seen SP2 cause all manner of problems with all manner of PCs. We upgrade about 50 PCs in the average week - at least 10-20% end up with some problem or the other. Many of them are niggling issues but still a pain in the neck.
From many years in the PC hardware business I've learnt that if it's new DON'T TRUST IT. That applies to new versions of windows, new drivers, new service packs and even to security updates. But, I do the security updates because I don't have a choice. You can apply security updates without SP2.
It's so screwed up that Microsoft have disabled the automatic updating to SP2 and prompts you to choose it. From some point next year it will become cumpulsory and you won't have a choice
If you must apply SP2 ghost your hard disk first so you can go back to your current position if need be. Restore Point is uselss and will not take you to a pre-SP2 position.
[edited by: Macro at 8:06 pm (utc) on Dec. 22, 2004]
joined:Dec 29, 2003
with my luck I'll be one of them ;). I'm not missing anything new, right? I just use it to store stuf and surf online.
I tested for a month on both my home and work cpu's. I had no problems so we rolled it out to our whole network. That was a couple of weeks ago and no issues yet.
SP2 problem" gives only a little more than 2 million search results
- A search for "sp2 no problem" gives 1,230,000 results, leaving 770,000.
- A search for "sp2 great" gives 1,520,000 results: so overall, the outlook's positive!
See how quoting Google results is meaningless?...
I've often argued against fixing things that were not broken.
Things are broken if you're not running SP2. It might not be obvious, but they are, and you risk getting caught out one day.
If you don't install SP2, then don't complain if you get infected with viruses, spyware, etc. SP2 is a huge improvement over the original XP, the update management is excellent, it makes sure the anti-virus signatures are up to date, it adds a reasonably solid firewall, and makes literally thousands of other improvements through the whole operating system. And this is a stauch, diehard Linux user talking.
Updating usually fails only when the machine is already infected with spyware - in my limited experience, I've had no problems. You might have some problems, but as with every big update, you should be doing full backups anyway. And as SP2 is more of a complete OS rewrite than a simple update, its install success rate is superb.
The advantages of having the update are abundantly clear: don't miss out because of scare stories.
Most of the user issues are related to automated blocking of installs w/o manual user permission, and some minor incompatibilities with the way some programs interact with the OS.
I first put SP 2 on my own PC when it was still RC 2, used it a month or two, then when it was released to the general public allowed it to install on the other machines in my network.
Since 8 of my PCs are accessed by the untrained public, I have had a number of problems over the years with spyware / adware infections.
Haven't had any of these sorts of infections on the patched PCs since patching the machines.
I recently got a new comp with Norton pre-installed, and for the first few months it turned out to be the worst computing experience of my life.
To make a long story short, the problem was NORTON. Corrupted registry entries, slow internet, Norton-specific DLL's replacing windows ones, you name it. I have a friend in tech support who took my XP pro disk and "slipstreamed" SP2 into it on a fresh CD so on a reinstall it installs SP2 with all the upgrades.
Backed up data, reformatted the HD, re-installed from the slipstreamed copy, and all is well. WITHOUT Norton. I'm using Grisoft's AVG on recommendation from our sys admin.
Short backstory, I worked in the DTP field of printing for about ten years, and even on Macs we had nothing but trouble with Norton.
<Now comes all the comments "I never had a problem with Norton . . . " they always do. :-) >
>>>Things are broken if you're not running SP2
Nonsense. I'm not running it, and nothing is broken on my (many) machines, I run closely monitored and regularly updated AV and security layers
>>>It might not be obvious, but they are (broken), and you risk getting caught out one day. If you don't install SP2, then don't complain if you get infected with viruses, spyware, etc.
Why would I get compromised when I already have built-in systems to deal with these threats? Systems built, I should add, by vendors outside of the all-encompassing Microsoft loop
You want to leave the security of your network up to the powerbase that controls your OS?
Good luck to you - I think you're considerably more likely to get 'caught out one day' than I am.
I see how your quoting of Google results is meaningless. Subtracting the number of people who've had no problem from the number of people who've had a problem does not give you a net figure. Whether there are two people who think it's great or a trillion the number of people who've had a problem does not change.
And, why does this search give me no results: search [google.co.uk]?
Browsing through the SP2 results in my earlier search you'll see how many large PC manufacturers advised their customers against installing SP2.
You cannot claim there are no problems. You can only claim that you have had no problems. Which is fair enough.
Informing him of significant problems with the upgrade, what the problems were, did you find a fix, have the enhancements outweighed the problems, etc. would be much more useful than supporting and re-supporting a position that we're obviously married to.
>> Informing him of significant problems with the upgrade, what the problems were, did you find a fix, have the enhancements outweighed the problems, etc. would be much more useful
No, it wouldn't in our case. It would take more than a few tens of thousands of words to summarise the net experience of all my employees, to describe the problems they've encountered, the specific hardware and software it had problems with, the resolutions, work-arounds and patches they've had to apply, or to the describe in what scenarios they just had to remove it and re-install a pre-SP2 version. Or to describe the cases where the SP2 upgrade went off smoothly. What's the point of describing the BIOS patch required before you can install SP2 on a Prescott if he doesn't have a P4 Prescott processor with a mobo that needs the update? Or pointing out individual articles like this one on continued security risks [i4x.be]. In my case it made sense to point him to available information out there. Others are free to post their own experiences, and several have either agreed or disagreed with me.
>> more useful than... re-supporting a position
Resupporting a position with evidence is of more use than a post that doesn't address the original question at all but takes a pot shot against those trying to help.
Nobody's disagreeing with your experience regarding niggling problems. Your experience is your experience. For the record, I agree that you had your experience.
BTW it only took me one post to address the question asked by walkman (see post #2). I really don't have a position to support. I simply answered the question.
For Macro it makes no sense for his users at this time based on the issues that have arisen with this update.
For me, myself and our sysadmin investigated all of the changes to see if they were appropriate or needed for our users. We decided when it first came out that it wasn't appropriate but there were a few things we would like to have installed. I eventually chose a couple systems, all my own, that were representative of my user base and installed it. I found that there were no problems and made the decision to roll it out to our users.
walkman, given the responses for both sides and that there are people who had problems. Do some research to see if there are problems with your hardware or software and go from there.
If you are still nervous, don't do it. At some point they will force it and it won't matter anymore but there is no reason to do it if there is reason to believe that it may adversely effect your system.
joined:Dec 29, 2003
thanks to all for the advice,
[edited by: walkman at 4:42 pm (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]
All the more reason to make a ghost/image. If you have a ghost then you can put two fingers up to the problems and try SP2 and see if it works for you. If it doesn't you haven't lost anything, just revert to the ghost. Good luck.
Strictly speaking they won't force you if you turn off automatic updates and consistently refuse the offer IE makes when it occasionally automatically calls home and offers you updates.
As well, I've got most of the more important security updates in file instead of needing to download them after a fresh install. If I never wanted to migrate from windows to linux, I STILL would be using SP1 instead of SP2. I consider it very lucky (better to be lucky than good....) that I bought an SP1 upgrade last year. I still wish I could find another one, but it doesn't appear likely.
Needless to say, I have auto update disabled. I never use IE, so there's really no way for them to "get" me.... And before MS "forces" me to upgrade to SP2, I'll be on linux anyway....
good point Macro
we all know that updates have gone horribly awry in the past. Full backups and/or Ghosts should be part of our regular procedures anyway, if not get to it. ;)
I doubt there are any of us who can afford to lose data or our time.