Microsoft laying down the Pimp Hand!

[Avid6eek]

April 12...all Windows XP PCs with an internet connection will be forced to download/install SP2 :eek:

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050222_141303.html

[Ace]

My goodness... right, well Ace2 will have its AU service disabled AND blocked. I am *not* having SP2 on there. I wonder if MS will do it in such a way that it's possible to patch Windows to stop this auto download/trick Windows Update into thinking it's already installed.

[Crax]

Ive not had any problems with it... most college campuses with on campus internet require you have it anyway. There were way too many viruses spreading way too quickly last year. So far it hasnt been a problem at all this year. Not saying it cant happen, just that it hasnt. I dont mind SP2 though.

[gokusimpson]

It took me a little figuring to get the stupid security features to do what I wanted them to do, but SP2 isn't that bad.

[therealwesty]

Yeah I haven't had any problems with SP2 actually. I've had it on my systems soon after it came out.

[Ace]

It's running fine at the moment on Ace1, but the security features (even when you've turned off pretty much everything you can) are *still* intrusive and restrictive in various ways. There are one or two things I can now only do with Ace2 running SP1. I'd rather sort out security myself with 3rd party programs, and anyway, I trust them more than I trust MS.

Aside from that, it comes down to the issue of principle - I should be able to refuse to install something I don't want to on software I bought, especially significant updates such as SP2. I remember quite a few teething problems after initially installing it, such as slow startups/shutdowns, sluggishness, freezes/crashes... but that all seemed to stop after a while, for some reason unbeknownst to myself.

[Avid6eek]

I installed SP2 when it first came out, and did have problems with it. I just recently installed a new copy of XP-SP1 and updated to SP2, and it is working much better.

Microsoft wants SP2 installed because viruses give them a bad name. I don't really think they are going to make exceptions. I'm sure whatever the feature is that will force this install is probably already installed on your system though regular updates.

[Zefram]

i dont see any problem with SP2, earlier on there was a problem with SP2, but when i download the new "SP2_RTM" installation files it went ok. RTM suppose to mean release to manufacturing and thus, its the final version of SP2
I dont see why people fuss over slow startup and stuff, i dont notice any performance degration, if any..................
Security Centre takes a lot of resources, and yes, just disable the services and windows will work fine without security centre. I dont need a software who nagged about this and that.............:p

Even SP2 cant fixed all the annoyance, there is a total of 12updates since SP2, and all critical patches. What a mess :D

So guys, SP2 dont have any problem, you dont need to slipstream the SP2 into your windows CD, it'll work fine with override installation over SP1.............

[blueice]

I do not know why Mr. Softee did not select April 15, after all, is not both Microsoft and the IRS - taxing!!!! Both fleece the general public.

[NotMyBest2Day]

I laugh at all of you. I've been saying for years how much XP sucks and now it's coming back to haunt you all. 2k sp4 rules! As far as slow startup/shutdowns, I have never seen XP startup or shutdown nearly as fast as 2k, and I've had to deal with it on a bunch of different rigs. I just completely hate XP through and through.

[lazyrunner50]

Funny you should say that with your sig being what it is:
"Cow.......'Nother cow." "Actually I think that's the same cow." - Twister
Though I know Win2000 looks different than XP, at it's core they are both pretty much the same. They share the same file system, a lot of the same security features, and a bunch of other things I probably don't know about. In any case, no matter how you look at it, it's the same Microsoft!

[Crax]

I laugh at all of you. I've been saying for years how much XP sucks and now it's coming back to haunt you all. 2k sp4 rules! As far as slow startup/shutdowns, I have never seen XP startup or shutdown nearly as fast as 2k, and I've had to deal with it on a bunch of different rigs. I just completely hate XP through and through.

Dont know why you're laughing at me... Im not haunted... I like XP and I dislike 2k. To each his own.

[therealwesty]

You could just disable Automatic Updates and steer clear of the Windows Update site. Further MS updates for XP will most certainly require SP2 be installed, but you could avoid it and continue to manage your security on your own. I would antisipate that future software, especially from Microsoft will require SP2 be installed as a prerequisite. After a fresh install with SP2 I really haven't found it any more or less work to disable services, edit the registry, and perform the other tweaks I normally do to get the OS the way I like it. Even on my PIII-M 1.2GHz notebook I haven't had any noticable problems or performance differences with SP2, especially after I tweak it. I would say overall I am neither pleased or displeased with SP2 and really don't see what all the crying is about.

[NotMyBest2Day]

Yeah, I know 2k and XP are the same core, but I have found that 2k runs faster, more reliably, has less problems, and not to mention the startup time comparison. I rebooted last night and it was 6 seconds for shutdown and 81 for startup, but that's loading 8 icons in the tray, too. Every XP machine I've seen is horrible with startup and shortly thereafter. But anyways, I don't really care, as has Crax said: To each his own.

[Ace]

If anyone can tell me how to disable that security bar in SP2 that appears at the top of IE when a site tries to download something, and return to the SP1 method of having tonnes of popup windows on persistent websites, I'll switch Ace2 to SP2 :)

[stlouis1]

welp...ill be cancelling my internet on the 11th then, f### sp2

[phill9800]

I only have service pack 1a installed and NO OTHER UPDATES!! I dont see the point.. Windows is slow enough as it is, I dont want it to be any slower...

[lazyrunner50]

Phil, just because it is an update doesn't make it slower. Take for instance driver updates. Usually if you get a driver update or something like that, it will make your product work faster and or more efficiently. True SP2 probably has a ton of things that slow down the system, but you can't just make a blanket statement that updates will make your computer slower.

[Zefram]

I dont see where you all are going..................
The problem here is there is too many people that either doesn't realise or ignoring updates, and when some hacker or virus writer exploits the flaw in the OS, people with out updates are screwed..............
Personally, i never had any problem with Windows XP, and any other windows. Viruses was never a problem for me, and those worm like blaster didnt effect me in anyway. The thing here is to keep yourself updated to shield yourself from all these "harm" from the net.........
I've seen people using Windows 2k, and some even Windows 98 because they claim Windows XP uses a lot of resources. Of course it did, those visual enhancement doesn't came for free! What the heck you buy fast processor and RAM for?
And on to Windows 2k user. Windows 2k is already on 4th Service Pack now, and no one whine about it. What the big commotion with XP?
Windows 2000 - released on 1999, now 2005 (6 years) - SP4
Windows XP - released on 2002, now 2005 (3 years) - SP2
You see? The Service Packs period are the same. Stop comparing Windows and start comparing it to other OS, like Linux or MAC OS :D

[phill9800]

Phil, just because it is an update doesn't make it slower. Take for instance driver updates. Usually if you get a driver update or something like that, it will make your product work faster and or more efficiently. True SP2 probably has a ton of things that slow down the system, but you can't just make a blanket statement that updates will make your computer slower.

I just noticed all the installed 'patches' and I have a list 5 miles long in my add remove programs list.. I cant be doing with it and if someone does hack through my fire wall and router and into my PC fair play. Nout on this system thats worth a huge amount to me! Besides, in the age of CD-RW's and so on, isnt that few minutes spent backing up worth the hassle of a messed up system?

[NotMyBest2Day]

I used to be in the routine of just instead of defrag, it was write zeroes and format about every 4-5 weeks. I like clean starts. Since I got 2k, I've been using it for about 6 months now and I've only started over once. Not that it matters anyways. With three storage drives, I put everything on those and just install programs on C:, so I don't lose anything anyways.

[lazyrunner50]

Phil, just because you have a long listing of updates/programs in your "Add/Remove" window does not mean they are all different processes that are running. Sometimes yes, but other times the update might replace the currently running process with a better one (as in the case of a driver update). The reason for having all the updates/programs in the list is to not only allow you to remove programs, but rollback updates.

The authoritative source of processes you have running is in the processes tab of Windows Task Manager. To stop them from running in the first place, you can just go to msconfig (run --> msconfig). If you don't want a specific process running, you can simply stop it from starting up when you start your computer. I personally think this is a MUCH safer method than hoping that no one will hack into my computer simply because I didn't want to download a couple patches that potentially enable Windows to work better.

[Ace]

Hardware firewall + software firewall - windows patches = me unconcerned
The extra security in SP2 does prevent you from doing some things - and this is security that, as far as I can see, whilst it is good for 95% of users, will annoy and even present a greater security risk to the other 5% and can't be disabled (however, the vast majority can).

Aside from the above, I just see it as my right to refuse to install specific major updates onto software I bought with my own money without having to disable potentially useful services for good.

Zefram - I think no-one moans about 2k because it's considered to be a slightly more pro OS, it wasn't one of the main ones for home use so to say, so people expect to have to perform admin type tasks. It isn't fair, but heck... was Microsoft fair when it decided to charge ridiculous prices for upgrades that give you some more features here, but REMOVE really useful features from somewhere else, only to bring them back next version, and remove some other useful feature... GRRRR... clever, but annoying.

[phill9800]

I'll just stick with what I have until something isnt right, requires updating or I just feel like seeing what its like... I think along the lines of, "If it aint broken, dont fix it :D"