Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Survey Shows Admins Avoiding SP2

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the untested-waters dept.

Windows 492

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."

cancel ×

492 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no comment (5, Funny)

LittleGuernica (736577) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242422)

I heard most of the admins weren't available for comment...because their email program was busy sending a lot of messages to people they don't know..

Re:no comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242428)

No. It's because they were accidentally frozen by liquid nitrogen just as they finally managed to regain control of the database that houses all of thier customers financial records.

Re:no comment (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242454)

oh ha ha. So it's a joke about windows admins being lazy, or stupid or something to that effect. Hurray for stupidity on all fronts. Including prejudice. Be it prejudice based on color or operating system, keeping up the pissed off antisocial attitude won't help the movement. It's socially inept angry fingerpointers who ruin any chance of our being taken seriously.

Mention how there was a serious flaw in the execution blocking in SP2, or how the anal retentive firewall can be bypassed by one crafted activex script in a webpage in IE. Don't try some lame ass joke that only works at defcon.

Re:no comment (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242667)

I'm pretty sure he's just saying that all these networks with no SP2 have been owned because they don't have SP2 yet. It's just a little joke.

Re:no comment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242464)

most of the good admins steered clear after the original release!!

A message for the Slashdot Editors... (-1, Offtopic)

aendeuryu (844048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242423)

Hi there. How's it going? ...

What? Did you think I was going to say something else?

Duped article... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242457)

Slashdot ought to take a page out of Corn Flakes' marketing campaign. "Slashdot: Read it again for the first time."

Re:Duped article... (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242495)

... and then use a time machine and sue the cornflakes company for stealing that sentence.

Whoa..first post? (3, Funny)

kilox (774253) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242424)

No way It cannot be..I feel special now. I use SP2 and have no problems. When I first installed it the thing went wonky...and I just ignored all the problems. Then they magically went away.

Re:Whoa..first post? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242646)

After I installed SP2, I found that a lot of things started crashing (just applications, not system crashes). I eventually realised the problem was that my CPU has an NX bit, and SP2 had enabled it. Once I disabled it, all the problems went away.

I'd like to have the NX bit enabled to improve security, but it's not worth it if it causes so much software to crash. The thing that worries me is that most people wouldn't have a clue about any of this, so would just be stuck with a choice between crashing applications or removing SP2.

1st (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242425)

1st :)

obviously.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242429)

because no one wants to deal with a STOP error..

Applications (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242432)

A heck of a lot of apps are NOT certified for sp2

Why just SP2? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242435)

Why avoid just SP2? Why not Windows?

-The anonymouz Tuxan

because you're a fucking dickhead, thats why (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242537)

and linux is for losers. The OS is a complete joke. It could have been great. But no. It sucks.

Re:because you're a fucking dickhead, thats why (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242589)

Did the Microsoft grammar checker help you with that sentence?

Why not linux? I'll tell you why (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242594)

It has far too few real applications. It will NOT attract proper developers, because the design prevents you from releasing a binary that will work for years. This is intentional, in keeping with the FSF's mantra.

Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

PS you are a turd moneky.

MOD ABUSE (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242658)

Flamebait does not mean "I disagree with this post". My post was true and you know it. You're all fucking sheep. Linux is a fairly poor OS by todays standard, hahahahahahha. Live with it. Its poisioned by rhe mindset of the (fairly shitty) developers.

FUCK YOU ALL! I HOPE YOU ALL CHOKE ON YOUR OWN MANCHODE. DIE DIE DIE! you FILTHY dity hippies. You sick fucks. Unclean! unclean! take a shower you loser hippies. FUCK

Re:Why not linux? I'll tell you why (1, Troll)

nkh (750837) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242689)

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.

I get a funny feeling (2, Insightful)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242436)

that I've seen this story before...

Simple... (5, Interesting)

demondawn (840015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242439)

1) People have enough problems with Windows without worrying about an upgrade that they've heard countless times will BREAK existing applications. 2) Some percentage of the population is simply pirating Windows and is afraid they'll get "caught" if they try to upgrade. 3) SP2 is seen as the first step in Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" initiative. 4) It breaks Halo. C'mon.

Re:Simple... (1)

random_culchie (759439) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242572)

Grrrr. I installed it, now my network scans are crippled. In particular VNCon.

Any slashdotters got any solutions apart from ditching SP2?

Re:Simple... (5, Informative)

GraemeDonaldson (826049) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242642)

This is probably because of the restrictions MS has added to limit concurrent incomplete TCP connection attempts. You probably have a whole bunch of 4226 events in your system log.

From technet [microsoft.com] article:
The TCP/IP stack now limits the number of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts. After the limit has been reached, subsequent connection attempts are put in a queue and will be resolved at a fixed rate. Under normal operation, when applications are connecting to available hosts at valid IP addresses, no connection rate-limiting will occur. When it does occur, a new event, with ID 4226, appears in the system's event log.

See here [lvllord.de] for a fix.

Re:Simple... (3, Informative)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242633)

Only ones I have seen on the list Microsoft publishes have been programs that need access through Windows Firewall. Sometimes it's easy to fix it....most times it isn't. Windows Firewall woul dbe MUCH better if:

It let you open the ports you need, with plenty of warning message of what may/may not happen.

Do more active scanning of the packets coming in and going out for malicious packets.

Windows Firewall is not enough in someways, but too much and not fine grained enough in control in other ways.

Re:Simple... (2, Insightful)

Jondaley (194380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242664)

I dunno. I used the registry hack to make windows not force the update when it first came out, since I was concerned that my sony laptop might have issues, and I didn't want to deal with anything.

But, after a while and I had heard good things about it, in terms of doing a good/significantly better job with security, I thought I would look into it more.

When I went to download it, it recommended that I look here, to see if my manufacturer had anything to say. They did, and had a couple downloads before I upgraded, and a couple after. Everything works great.

Manufacturer Guidelines [microsoft.com]

Re:Simple... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242712)

Yup, that is why the company I work for, one of the LARGEST communications companies in the USA, does not even run XP yet.

W2K does everything that we need..... it's more STABLE than XP, and we do not have application incompatability. Hell we can even run some of the old windows 95 apps and DOS apps without problems.

Wanna hear something funnier, for our critical stuff, the servers that make us $10,000 an hour running commercials, still run windows NT 4.0 because W2K is not proven to us to be as stable as NT4 in that specific use on that hardware. Also, cince those servers are on their own protected network any comments of "hax0r3d or own3d" are silly cince the script kiddie will need physical access or capable of tapping a fiber optic line, you can not access it without sitting in one of the data centers or the server locations.

Although the temptation is pretty high on that gear, imagine forcing all the top channels in a community to start playing monty python and the holy grail at midnight.

Hey Editors: DUPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242440)

Not another boring story... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242445)

ZZZzzz...

Not I (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242446)

I spent just over 3 months testing SP2 with all of our internal and external applications as well as stress tests for performance differences between SP1a and SP2. SP2 got the green flag the second time round (it failed because some internal applications failed, these were updated as was decided by IM).

I finished doing the last update about 3 weeks ago and have not had any problems relating to SP2 yet which is great.

IMO the only negative thing about SP2 is its size/time to install. It has slowed down deployment because of the bandwidth it uses and the the time it takes to install which is a major impact to production, which means it needs to be down out of office hours which means IT support need to work over time, etc.

While deployment of SP2 was tiring and long I would rather got on with it than wait it out like some companies are doing.

Re:Not I (1, Insightful)

MarsBar (6605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242545)

Surely you only need to download once?

Re:Not I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242628)

I think he was talk ing about internal bandwidth. Deploying to from one machine(the server per say) to the rest of the network, not downloading it from Microsoft for each individual machine.

Re:Not I (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242623)

The small company where I work also upgraded from XP SP1.

And, from what you describe, it sounds like we spent about the same effort.

Only thing is, we upgraded to Linux.

Of course, we were lucky, since we were mostly using standard office applications that have a ready alternative on Linux (MS Office -> OpenOffice, Outlook -> Evolution, IE -> Mozilla Firefox).

We only have one Windows PC left, which is running our accounting software. Linux alternatives exist (the most suitable for us being non-free), but we're still in the process of evaluating them.

Lazy / Time Consuming... (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242450)

This is a 200Mb file that you need to send to every computer on the corp. network, so even if you were ready to start deploying SP2 you couldn't do so over night.

Further more SP2 adds LOTS of functionality and changes the behaviour of Windows and thus is extremely likely to break things on a corp. setup.

So I am not at all shocked that network admins haven't all installed it yet.. But I bet you if you changed the survey to - "How many network admins are installing (Via Slipstream) SP2 on new installations?" you would get a very positive and different result.

Re:Lazy / Time Consuming... (1)

eibon (825176) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242503)

So I am not at all shocked that network admins haven't all installed it yet.. But I bet you if you changed the survey to - "How many network admins are installing (Via Slipstream) SP2 on new installations?" you would get a very positive and different result.
I'm not an administrator myself, but wouldn't this go against the idea of a homogenous environment? After a while, they'd be dealing with some of their users on a different OS version than the majority, probably leading to several new and exciting problems which may or may not be caused by the differing versions.

Re:Lazy / Time Consuming... (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242527)

You are correct. But it is not unusual to find three or more "Base Systems" on a network. You would have to design a patch procedure for all of your base systems and test it; which would be very time consuming (thus the problem).

not accepted or just lazy, unorganized, dumb? (5, Interesting)

MadMirko (231667) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242452)

While there might be good reasons for not installing here and there, I suspect most of the so called "admins" are just to lazy or simply clueless when it comes to large scale software distribution.

Installing SP2 in a large corporate environment is nothing to sneeze at, I agree, but that's no excuse for not patching.

Re:not accepted or just lazy, unorganized, dumb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242496)

i suggest you RTFA cause on the first page it addresses just that, wether they are lazy or not !!!

They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (5, Insightful)

Black Art (3335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242459)

It breaks a whole bunch of apps [microsoft.com] . It is a large enough list that something will probably not work on a high percentage of machines in any sizable deployment of Windows XP.

Windows admins have a good reason to be a bit careful here. Windows Service Packs have a long tradition of making systems or applications no longer function. After getting burned a few times, you learn to be careful.

Re:They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242522)

Forget about the apps. I installed SP2 on my AMD64. The computer rebooted and then nothing, nada, zip. Not even a blue screen of death.
For a moment I feared that the pc itself had died. So I installed fedora to make sure that the hardware is ok. I didn't see a compelling reason to switch back to windows so it is still running fedora.

Re:They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (5, Funny)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242593)

And therein lies SP2's solution to improving security.

Now only if an IE update would install Firefox.

Re:They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242618)

It breaks a whole bunch of apps.

Crap. It breaks really old versions of a number of apps.

Those apps are mostly broken themselves, e.g. they deliberately try to execute from a stack where SP2 has no-execution protection on the stack. You can disable no-execution protection if you really must run those versions of those apps, there's a KB about it.

Re:They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (2, Funny)

Kaorimoch (858523) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242629)

Every move up the progressive OS cycle leaves programs behind that don't work. I sometimes spend hours on google trying to find workarounds to get old games working. You won't believe what you have to do to get System Shock 2 working on XP.

Win admins are RETARED then? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242662)

may cause BSsOD when non-compliant programmes are used.

Have you not read this [slashdot.org] yet. Also, I seem to remember a reputable article that ranked the varios Linux and Windows distros against each other. Out in front - OpenBSD, and RH Linux 9, Fedora and others not far behind, and XP SP2 not far behind those - but all secure except for a few crappy insignificant attacks. Way back down the line - XP SP1, Win 2000 - these O.S's have all been completely compromised.

Re:They have good reasons to avoid SP2 (4, Informative)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242685)

That may be, but we've heard people raving for years about MS security, most of which comes down to legacy support and the inherently bad design decisions in the code that supports that. So, they're starting to fix things, slowly. We've all predicted applications aren't going to work any longer when they make the change. But that's really just too bad. We can't really have it both ways; it wasn't done right the first time, so we either get security, or we get legacy application support. Not both.

Coming soon: New Code Red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242460)

fewer than 24% of over 136,000 Windows XP PCs in 251 North American corporations surveyed had SP2 installed.

Get ready for Code Purple, the new improved followup to Code Red, yet again pwning every unpatched Windows machine on the net in a couple of hours, by exploiting bugs that have been fixed long ago.

Security moanings (4, Insightful)

hmmm (115599) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242461)

Some administrators take every opportunity to whinge and moan when Microsoft products have a security vulnerability. When Microsoft do the "right thing" (such as XP SP2), there is more whinging and moaning . Security is not easy - the spin on security being a "business enabler" should have died with the dot com bust. Security restricts and breaks functionality, sometimes deliberately, with the tradeoff that you are now accepting less overall risk in your environment.

Re:Security moanings (1, Interesting)

aug24 (38229) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242553)

When Microsoft do the "right thing"

For your info, this service pack may cause BSsOD when non-compliant programmes are used. Think about that: a service pack that changes an operating system so that the kernel can be killed by an application. No wonder admins are loathe to roll it out! Imagine the crap you'd get from the board if it turned out your in-house programs now kill Windows?

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

Justin.

Re:Security moanings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242630)

For your info, this service pack may cause BSsOD when non-compliant programmes are used. Think about that: a service pack that changes an operating system so that the kernel can be killed by an application.

OK, enlighten us - how about some references?

I haven't heard of or seen anything like that and I've been running SP2 since the first release candidate.

Re:Security moanings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242635)

Actually, the BSODs are caused by drivers installed by applications to get around security restrictions that exist when the software is not run as admin.

Re:Security moanings (0, Troll)

coolcold (805170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242670)

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

please......dont sucide Y_Y

Re:Security moanings (1)

Osrin (599427) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242691)

By "non-compliant application" you really mean "badly written application"?

Re:Security moanings (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242709)

Even the worst made application ever should not be able to kill the kernel in any modern operating system.

Re:Security moanings (2, Interesting)

aug24 (38229) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242715)

Firstly, it didn't used to be considered "badly written" - even Halo by Microsoft is in that list.

Secondly, and more importantly, no application, no matter how it is written, should be able to kill the kernel! That is just ridiculous, and in other circumstances would be referred to as a local denial of service vulnerability.

Please now hit yourself with a clue-stick.

J.

Re:Security moanings (2, Interesting)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242556)

Yeah, but when they fixed security did they have to break the USB port at the same time?

Re:Security moanings (2, Funny)

MrNonchalant (767683) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242703)

Some administrators take every opportunity to whinge and moan when Microsoft products have a security vulnerability. When Microsoft do the "right thing" (such as XP SP2), there is more whinging and moaning .

Some administrators whine and moan whenever they have to do work.

Alternative headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242465)


Admins threaten corporate IT security by avoiding to fix vunerable machines

Re:Alternative headline (2, Interesting)

delymyth (17681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242532)

Admins threaten corporate IT security by avoiding to fix vunerable machines

It's not avoiding to fix them, it's just trying not to have to install the machine again.
And I heard of people having BIG problems with SP2 installations.
It's better to get a firewall, an antivirus, change email client and browser.
Less things to worry about :)

I guess we just have to wait... (5, Funny)

The New Andy (873493) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242466)

Give them some time, then the malware authors [slashdot.org] will start writing SP2 dependant stuff and we'll all be much better off.

we dont care (0, Redundant)

genocyde (184014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242468)

Can the moderators please stop posting reports about SP2 acceptance. We've been bombarded with stories on /. about sp2 acceptance and bugs since sp2 was released. Its windows. Its buggy. and it normally takes long to be accepted. Think about it. Windows XP came out in 2000/2001. Its 5 yrs down the line an people are still taking their switching over from ME/98. Why would we care that sysadmins are taking 6months to install SP2?

Nothing But Pity (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242469)

I can't imagine what a sad life it must be to have to wake up and support Microsoft products every day.

There must be a constant and relentless amount of rationalizing with the usual "things are getting better" "all software has problems, not just MS" and all the other MS mantras.

Nothing but pity.

Re:Nothing But Pity (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242609)


thanks for the pity but my fat paycheck will suffice for now

Windows creates jobs, if it all "just worked" with no need for updates ever etc. then most Admin's would be part-timers, you would install the machine and never see the customer again, not exactly good for any buisness that according to the "free market" is supposed to expand
viruses and malware on their own have created entire multi billion dollar industries engaged into defeating their effects, but conviently they just cant seem to eliminate the problem$

Re:Nothing But Pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242641)

Fat paycheck?, dream on loser.

Re:Nothing But Pity (1)

kshotswell (873805) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242673)

Some of us die hard linux admin geeks have bills to pay and at the moment I'm supporting those windows boxes because I havn't found a the dream linux job yet, but if your hiring I'm listening!!!

Ghettonet.org [ghettonet.org]

Things shouldn't be this way (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242473)

Really, am I the only one thinking that something is very broken in Windows when Microsoft has to convince us to apply a (free) upgrade to the system?

Network & firewall changes (3, Interesting)

smithberry (714364) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242479)

I'm not surprised at the reluctance.
Given that many of the SP2 changes relate to networks and firewalls, the bigger the corporate network the bigger the chance the upgrade will take some time to get working for everyone in a company.
If you are used to fixing problems remotely and the upgrade prevents the problem PC connecting to the network... you see the issue :-)

who cares what number post... (-1, Troll)

_Shorty-dammit (555739) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242487)

like anyone gives a damn if you post something first or second or 98th or 1929129th. Every single one is special. That is to say, none of them are. So, eat a sandwich.

Re:who cares what number post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242611)

But lunchtime's not for a couple of hours yet!

SP2 is useless (2, Funny)

n0dalus (807994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242494)

As long as your internet connection is secure, ie, you have a good firewall or router (as you would have in a large corporate environment), then the negative effects of SP2 outweigh the positive ones.
SP2 breaks network connectivity by limiting the number of connections you can make in a given amount of time.
SP2 creates a bunch of annoying and useless popups and warning messages, with no real extra security (compare vulnerabilities found before and after SP2 on sites like Secunia).
The only thing SP2 does that's any good is fix up a bit of XP's so-called "firewall".

I don't blame these admins and I wouldn't be installing SP2 either.

Re:SP2 is useless (2, Interesting)

delymyth (17681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242512)

I had to install SP2 here at work, because of the machine analysis program that examines all the machines connected to this network.
I was just tired to see each and every monday the same email that was telling me it was *mandatory* to install the latest Service Pack on my machine.
Since I'm not using that many programs here, SP2 works fine anyway.

Re:SP2 is useless (3, Insightful)

Jackdaw Rookery (696327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242657)

That's great up until someone releases malware inside your network. On corporate networks, often 100k plus desktops, it will happen.

SP2 isn't useless, it is manditory, but a serious pig to apply in the corporate environment. You are short sighted to think otherwise.

SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (5, Interesting)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242505)

I recently obtained a copy of Visual Studio 2005 which I wanted to play around with. Install went fine (on XP) UNTIL I tried to install the DOCUMENTATION...which insisted that XP SP2 had to be installed!!

So I installed it. It broke SQL Server 2000 because I hadnt patched it (but wrote information to the event log about how to fix it) but apart from that things went well...

Until I tried to run the spidering app Ive been working on at which point I discovered that XP Pro + SP2 = Castrated System! SP2 limits the number of connections pending opening to 10 (down from 50) and provides no way to change this limit!!!! Unimpressed....

Anyways, given that many pieces of software will only run on systems patched to a certain SP level Id expect that it wont take long before its a required upgrade...having to install it for documentation to work though....that rubbed me the wrong way I must say..

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (-1, Flamebait)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242562)

So what do you mean by "obtained?" Stolen? "Borrowed?" And what do you mean by "spidering?" Trying to spam the addresses on my websites? Do everyone a favor and just post your IP so the Business Software Alliance can catch you warezing.

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242615)

If you don't value your waranty (he he... what warenty?), there is a third-party commmand line tool to change this limit. You can't remove the limit, but you can make it something like 10,000. I've switched to Linux now and I can't remember what it's called, but you can Google for it like a good geek.

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242643)

Why on Gods green earth are you running SQL SERVER on XP?

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242659)

Why on Gods green earth are you running SQL SERVER on XP?

Development, probably. I don't think any other edition will install on XP, unless you count MSDE.

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242645)

XP SP2 patch [lvllord.de] (you also need this one after you've applied april's 'critical' updates.

The limit sucks, and makes it almost impossible to connect to P2P networks, use bittorrent or do other stuff power users do. It effectively cripples the system under the guise of 'worm protection'.

It supposedly protects the net from outgoing worms, unless these worms start patching tcpip.sys, which is probably just an extra line of code to add to the virus. So it's actually no protection at all.

Re:SP2 soon to be FORCED upon us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242647)

It broke SQL Server 2000 because I hadnt patched it

You should be strung up by the nuts. If you needed to patch SQL Server then you're telling us your system was vulnerable to slammer. Get with the fucking program. MBSA is your friend.

Its not flaimbait.. Plz dont on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242506)

I forced my friend to go for RHEL3.0 Linux, when he was planning to build a solution for his client. The machine is located in very secure area where Internet is not allowed.



Now, he is stuck with the problem of applying patches. Not only because up2date costs, but the darn thing does not work without internet. He is breaking his head against all web sites where a clear instructions of how to apply patches to this machine.



I could not counter his argument that MS definitely helps customers in this area. I am posting this here, just to know if anyone can point me to correct web sites?.

Any lead will be helpful.

Re:Its not flaimbait.. Plz dont on me (3, Interesting)

pklong (323451) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242560)

It's not just patches. If you want to install extra Linux software these days you had better have a broadband connection t'interweb. Without yum or apt-get resolving all the dependancies will take you a long time and some effort (broken dependancy xyz.lib, now where do I get that.)

Now windows installers are huge. But at least it's usually just a case of downloading and running setup.exe and all is done done for you.

Re:Its not flaimbait.. Plz dont on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242663)

You're saying that Linux is a problem for him, because he doesn't have access to the Internet, and can't get his upgrades.

So tell me, how was he going to get his upgrades if he had stayed with Windows?

And why does he need the upgrades since, with no Internet access, there are no security problems? Why not just install a newer version in say six months or a year?

Re:Its not flaimbait.. Plz dont jump on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242694)

Thats ridiculus.



Windows patch can be just copied onto a CDRom and kept as reference *wherever u go*.



The patches are needed to fix some issues, as suggested by RHN.



Dont get me wrong dude. I am hardcore fan of Linux. I have suggested him to go for whiteboxlinux now, but feeling a bit low about RH's policy of making things difficult for us.



Let me generalize question (as if nothing specific to my friend). Is there a standard manual way (not up2date) of applying patches to RHEL3?

XP SP2 sucks for p2p? (5, Interesting)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242510)

I friend told me this, that she observed that her p2p speeds went down after p2p. At first I didn't quite believe it, after all what could Microsoft do to make XP prejudice against P2P. Then I read this [geekswithblogs.net] .

XP Sp2 limiting the number of connection/sec This feature/function can be handy from security point of view. Bink.Nu links to a functionality in Windows XP SP2 that limits conncurrent TCP/IP connections. I vaguely remember reading some relating when I was using Windows 2000 as well about a setting in registry where we can limit the number of TCP/IP Connections. On Googling I found the following link and on this forum . You can save your computer from P2P programs trying to make many connections at the same time and this can also apply to some of the viruses and worms.


To be honest this was the first I heard about it. I just naturally assumed that shareza didn't peform as well as other dedicated P2P software applications. That registery entry seems to be missing and according to what i've read is hard coded in tcpip.sys. I found software to change the number of connections permited in tcpip.sys here [lvllord.de] and it might be covered in XP-antispy [xp-antispy.org] though I've not tested it yet.

In all fairness I have had few problems with XP SP2. Unfortunatly any problem I've had has been hardware related.

Re:XP SP2 sucks for p2p? (2, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242648)

I've once written a piece of code that probes all addresses on the local class C subnet, looking for the MySQL server. Yeah, this is a lame-ish solution, but it's much better than trying to explain what an "IP address" or even "server name" is to your average accounting drone.

On 98: the limit of available TCP sockets is pretty low, but Windows will tell your program that the call failed. Ok.
On XP SP1: the limit of available sockets is a lot higher. Everything works fine.
On XP SP2: Windows will start _10_ or so connections, and then lie to your process that the extra connections are pending... They won't actually start until after the first 10 completed and/or timed out.

The above means, on an XP SP2 box, you can't do a legitimate scan faster than 10 IPs/120 seconds, and this pretty much broken down my installer. The alternative, having to ask someone competent what the server is and typing the address in was pretty unviable due to the customer company lacking enough competent IT people.

SP2 runs fine on my PowerBook :) (5, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242525)

Got it when it became available through Windows Update. No issues, but then, I don't have a lot of weird apps, and Virtual PC doesn't emulate weird hardware, so oh well.

I hardly ever use it, though... except to run Windows Update when a new batch of patches come out.

WI-FI woes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242541)

If you have a Windows XP laptop with WI-FI and if you go to conferences where there are wireless networks, then you HAVE to get SP2: it's a crime not to.

The bug mentioned in the article, where Windows sets up an ad hoc network on a preferred SSID it can't find, is lethal in a conference network. One fuckwitted XP box stealing the SSID for its ad hoc network can disconnect hundreds of delegates. Any time that you're nearer the XP box than the access point (s.t. the XP box has more signal), your net access is toast, whether or not you're running windows.

I've been at conferences where there were hourly PA-broadcasts begging XP users to turn off their ad-hoc networks. If you have XP SP1 on-line at a conference, then you should expect to have your laptop pounded into fragments by angry geeks. They will be justified.

Say what? (4, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242550)

In the case of SP2, Microsoft wants people to upgrade on demand, Schneier says.

So, if Microsoft force you to upgrade to SP2 to reduce the number and chances of a compromised PC it's bad because they're forcing you.

If Microsoft don't force you to upgrade then it's bad because they're not being proactive enough in reducing the number and chances of a compromised PC.

Must be great to be a decision maker at Microsoft where whatever choices you take it won't be liked.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242573)

Ah, the woes of monopoly.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242614)

well, i think is wrong to say that a machine without sp2 is vulnerable, if that was the case everybody would have it installed after weeks of constant crashes, trojans, infections... But the thing is... theres a lot of people with sp1 and a router that are perfectly fine. These people would like to use some of the future patches, not all, just the really important. And thats the problem, we wont be able to do it unless we have that thing running. I think i wont have any problems installing sp2, but anyway i dont have problems now, i cant even remember the last time any of my windows or linux boxes crashed. And everybody knows first law in comps is "if aint broken, dont touch it".
I even installed sp2 in an OLD box, that had been without a clean isntall for 4 years, and it worked (took 3 or 4 hours), but i did not like the constant moaning of the os, so i uninstall the thing (and it keep working like nothing happened)
a lot of people (me included) just want to be able to install the things we need.

Re:Say what? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242705)

but i did not like the constant moaning of the os

So go to the security centre in control panel and turn it off! Jesus, it's not *that* hard. In any case, it's for your own good - you should be running AV and a firewall unless you really know what you're doing.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242621)

you don't seem to get one thing! SP2 has been out for what 9 months now? Fine, good move that we have fixes for our swiss cheese! But why the hell do they want to stick it up my ass? If i want it i damn well know where to find it...

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242671)

But why the hell do they want to stick it up my ass?

So they don't have to support too many codebases at once. Everyone retires old code when they realistically can, even FOSS. Good luck getting the GCC team to talk 2.95.x fixes, unless you pay them - and rightly so.

Don't blame me if the system breaks (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242552)

Upgrading to Windows XP SP2 is nothing compared to a corporate update of, say, FreeBSD.

Having said that, the problem remains : an admin REALLY BADLY WANTS to upgrade the companies machines, but is always faced with the daunting prospect that even with the best planning, you have NO IDEA what the hell the system is going to do once you start that update.

This is not a probelms with home users who can afford to have their boxes trashed by the upgrade and then freshly installed (or then again, maybe not with that whole activation thing), but in the enterprise it becomes a huge issue when people go without their internet for too long.

Bottom line (5, Insightful)

spywhere (824072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242571)

Windows XP SP2 is, um, the current version of Windows. Avoiding it means your systems are running on a legacy OS.
When new programs come out that require SP2 (like the upcoming IE7), it will be too late to start thinking about an upgrade... If it breaks your 5-year-old applications, replace them.
If your internally-generated code isn't ready, fix it.
If you can't cope with the lame Window Firewall, RTFM to customize or disable it.

How long before the legal or finance departments need to use a business-critical Web site that requires IE7 for access?

Re:Bottom line (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242639)

How long before the legal or finance departments need to use a business-critical Web site that requires IE7 for access?

I'd have thought that, as the customer, if that ever occurred, any sensible business would be telling the provider very loudly about how they will move to another provider if they don't make it Just Work(TM) with all recent browser flavours.

Justin.

Re:Bottom line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242650)

How long before the legal or finance departments need to use a business-critical Web site that requires IE7 for access?

As long as the webmaster is a total dumbass and doesn't follow the standards.

Re:Bottom line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242651)

ok mr smarty pants, what if my 5 year old applications cost 10,000.00 a piece? will you fork over some dow so i can replace them?

And why on earth is it going to be too late to upgrade when ie7 comes out? if it doesn't work with WinXP then i can always use firefox.

By the way, i have 5 years worth of internally written code! are you going to fucking pay me to fix that?

I'll be honest here.. (1)

Digital Warfare (746982) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242595)

and say that we have had no problems with SP2, even with our in-house applications. I have had no problems at home either, I actually quite like the release.

I do relise it has taken Microsoft 3 years to get a decent release of XP, but it'll be ruind when Longhorn comes out, I know, I've used it :(

Please! no more so called security companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242634)

From article:

"Richard Rushing, CTO for wireless monitoring software firm AirDefense..."

STOP !

THINK !

Are you getting increasingly concerned by the amount of so called computer security firms being quoted in articles from BBC News to Tom's Hardware ?

What credentials to these companies have ?

What business to they actually turn over ?

Who is stupid enough to actually want their services ?

What do they ACTUALLY DO in their job ?

Why are there so many of them ?

Why are their quotes awarded any gravitas in articles at all ?

These are all excellent questions. Answers on a post card.

admins of what? (0)

socket9001 (870833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12242644)

if someone uses xp as a server... that explains the rest

updates are downgrades. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12242679)

We have tricked SUS server to run on XP home editions here ( so we DO have a choice in deploying Suckpack2 ) ( ps SUS officially has to run on a server version of winblows , but this in ONLY to sell more of them, It runs fine on XP ones you alter the installation ).

But even the small updates break loads of stuff.

Yesterday the SUS server was told to deploy the 8 updates MS brought out 2 days ago.
One of the patches totally broke the antivirus software. ( f*#$^&#kers ).

On a SP2 test machine it even had the nerf to tell us that the computer is freakin insecure because no fucking antivirus package was running.

retep vosnul.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>