XP SP2 coming whether you like it or not

By Derek Sooman on February 22, 2005, 12:33 PM
According to an article at Neowin, on April 12th Microsoft plans to force SP2 onto all Windows XP and Windows XP SP1 machines. Prior to that time, users have been able to say no to SP2 because they have had the option of temporarily blocking the update from being downloaded to their machines through the Automatic or Windows Update mechanisms. But this is not going to be the case any more after April 12th, and SP2 will be getting delivered whether you like it or not.

"The intent of this alert is to provide you with a reminder about the upcoming deadline around the date on which Automatic Update (AU) and Windows Update (WU) will deliver Windows XP SP2 regardless of the presence of the blocking mechanism."




User Comments: 17

Got something to say? Post a comment
Spike said:
If you don't want SP2, now would be a good time to set a rule in your firewall to block the IP.
howard_hopkinso said:
Also a good time to download all your current updates and save them to cd.I don`t like the idea that MS is trying to force(going to force) this upon us.Who the hell do they think they are?What ever happened to freedom of choice.
genericuser100 said:
Wow.. no one, and I mean NO ONE researched this at all... if you go to *WINDOWS UPDATE* it says, and I QUOTE: "Windows XP support on Windows Update will soon require XP SP1 or later"... so they are gonna require SP1. Can't really require SP2 if they aren't even requiring SP1 yet. Now, the article actually refers to the fact that business customers will get SP2 in an automatic update now, whereas consumers have been getting it since August.The "blocking mechanism" referenced in the news post is in fact a registry key for business customers that allowed them to block upgrading to SP2 until they were finished testing and updating.
nosecretnow said:
What I do not understand is "what gives people the right" NOT to update their systems? I hear all these people getting pissy over them having the "right" not to install updates on their computers if they don't want to, but what if I said I have the "right" not to have headlights on my car and choose to drive at night on the road with YOU and your family? Don't you think you'd feel a bit insecure knowing there's a nut on the roads driving in the dark and heading right for you and you can't even see them coming? Well, that is exactly how I feel when people say they have a right NOT to update their PC's and allow their computers to become SPAM factories and virus spreaders that effect everyone else out there on the net. What give you the right to make the internet more dangerous for everyone elses computer?
Phantasm66 said:
[b]Originally posted by genericuser100:[/b][quote]Wow.. no one, and I mean NO ONE researched this at all... if you go to *WINDOWS UPDATE* it says, and I QUOTE: "Windows XP support on Windows Update will soon require XP SP1 or later"... so they are gonna require SP1. Can't really require SP2 if they aren't even requiring SP1 yet. Now, the article actually refers to the fact that business customers will get SP2 in an automatic update now, whereas consumers have been getting it since August.The "blocking mechanism" referenced in the news post is in fact a registry key for business customers that allowed them to block upgrading to SP2 until they were finished testing and updating.[/quote][quote]An Update to this Article:At least one person has commented here, and a few others personally to Aunty or in other fora, that Aunty has her facts wrong, that Microsoft is not requiring you to update to SP2, and citing as support for that the fact that Microsoft has stated that they will support SP1 through 2006.To that Aunty says:[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp
ro/maintain/sp2aumng.mspx[/url]..which says, in relevant part:“UPDATE: Time is running out! Please note that the mechanism to temporarily disable delivery of Windows XP SP2 is only available for a period of 240 days (8 months) from August 16, 2004. At the end of this period (after April 12, 2005), [b]Windows XP SP2 will be delivered to all Windows XP and Windows XP Service Pack 1 systems.[/b]”Now, granted English is Aunty’s first language, but still, to Aunty “will be delivered” means, well, will be delivered.To those who took Aunty to task saying that this applies only to the Professional edition of XP, Aunty quotes from the same Microsoft document, wherein it offers the following timeline:“Summary of Relevant Windows XP SP2 Dates8/06/2004 - Release to manufacturing8/09/2004 - Release to Microsoft Download Center (full network install package)8/10/2004 - Release to Automatic Updates (for machines running pre-release versions of Windows XP SP2 only)8/16/2004 - Release (English) via Software Update Services (SUS)8/18/2004 - Release (English) via AU to customers running Windows XP Home Edition and not already running a pre-release version of Windows XP SP2Later in August/2004 - Delivery of Windows XP SP2 (English) via Windows Update and delivery via AU to customers running Windows XP Professional Edition and not already running a pre-release version of Windows XP SP24/12/2005 - Windows XP SP2 will be delivered to all Windows XP and Windows XP Service Pack 1 systems.”Please note the last three dates…it doesn’t say “Professional Edition only"..it says “first systems running Home Edition, then systems running Professional Edition….then all systems.”It is, however, true that the update cannot be forced on you if you are not running Automatic Update or Windows Update.Kissy kissy,Aunty[/quote][url]http://www.aunty-spam.com/resistance
is-futile-microsoft-forces-sp2-update-on-all-xp-and-xp-sp1
machines/[/url][Edited by Phantasm66 on 2005-02-23 02:36:14]
howard_hopkinso said:
[b]Originally posted by nosecretnow:[/b][quote]What I do not understand is "what gives people the right" NOT to update their systems? I hear all these people getting pissy over them having the "right" not to install updates on their computers if they don't want to, but what if I said I have the "right" not to have headlights on my car and choose to drive at night on the road with YOU and your family? Don't you think you'd feel a bit insecure knowing there's a nut on the roads driving in the dark and heading right for you and you can't even see them coming? Well, that is exactly how I feel when people say they have a right NOT to update their PC's and allow their computers to become SPAM factories and virus spreaders that effect everyone else out there on the net. What give you the right to make the internet more dangerous for everyone elses computer?[/quote]I think your argument is flawed. 1 by not updating my pc I am not causing anyone any danger whatsoever. So your analogy is complete rubbish.2 I don`t get virii malware adware spyware etc on my system because I don`t go to stupid websites and download everything in sight. I also have very good antivirus firewall and antispyware programmes running on my system.3 Why should I jeopardise my system stability with a piece of software that even MS themselves know may cause serious problems with some systems?4 while freedom of choice may not matter to you it certainly does to me. It`s bad enough that our choices are being erroded by governments, but when multi billion dollar companies start shouting the odds it`s time to stop.Please note this is in no way a personal attack on you, but I feel very strongly when someone tells me that I must do something that I have a right not so to do.Regards Howard.[Edited by howard_hopkinso on 2005-02-23 03:38:36]
nic said:
I have to agree with nosecretnow...Sure users have a right to decide whether or not to update, and that is still an available choice (don't use auto update). Whilst some users might be well be able to keep their systems clean (of malware etc.) without moving to SP2, this isn't the case for most users that aren't as knowledgeable. When you share a network (e.g. the internet) with others then I feel it fair to say that you have a duty of care to insure that your system doesn't contribute to the malware/spam problem. Just because you are a careful driver doesn't mean you should not have car insurance. You can of course opt not to have car insurance provided you don't venture out onto the public highway where other users are driving. Just my $0.02.
Mictlantecuhtli said:
Hehehe.. criticize Microsoft if they don't supply updates, criticize them when they do...
phantasm66 said:
If you don't patch your machine, you leave yourself open to attack. Your machine could then be exploited, and used to attack other machines. You have a duty to update.
Mictlantecuhtli said:
Don't insurance companies require proof that security was in place, system was up to date, if the system was attacked and data lost?There's a law term "wilful blindness", I think it applies here.
Spike said:
lol. I wasn't trying to say people shouldn't update. personally, I think they shouls.I was just trying to point out that even if MS did decide to try and force SP2 onto people, there'd be a way around it.
nosecretnow said:
[b]Originally posted by howard_hopkinso:[/b][quote]I think your argument is flawed. 1 by not updating my pc I am not causing anyone any danger whatsoever. So your analogy is complete rubbish.2 I don`t get virii malware adware spyware etc on my system because I don`t go to stupid websites and download everything in sight. I also have very good antivirus firewall and antispyware programmes running on my system.3 Why should I jeopardise my system stability with a piece of software that even MS themselves know may cause serious problems with some systems?4 while freedom of choice may not matter to you it certainly does to me. It`s bad enough that our choices are being erroded by governments, but when multi billion dollar companies start shouting the odds it`s time to stop.Please note this is in no way a personal attack on you, but I feel very strongly when someone tells me that I must do something that I have a right not so to do.Regards Howard.[/quote]1 - By not updating your pc and getting on the Internet you ARE causing massive amounts of danger. The vast majority of problems on the net are not spyware or malware. They are trojans and bots who sit silently on your pc, spewing out endless streams of spam and replicants of themselves to everyone on your network and everyone on your ISP who, like you, are ignorant to the length hackers will go to spread their warez.2 - And as for "stupid websites" - so you do not visit adult sites, but what about this site? What about eBay, MSN, Yahoo, and even Google??? Have you read the news lately that several new exploits (read: trojans, bots, and virii) are spreading directly through Google search and onto people's computers, as well as through forums and the like without any download or execution requirement? Why do you think they call it Internet Exploiter rather than Explorer?3 - If you are worried about jeopardizing your system, then why not run Linux instead, or even buy a Mac? I run Gentoo Linux (to avoid all the hassle of this very argument) and even then, on average my system reports between 250 to 500 intrusion attempts per hour from others (such as yourself) running Windows with unseen and unknown bots trying to spread their spam and themselves.4 - And as for freedom of choice? Have you forgotten that the patches are coming from the company that BUILT THE OPERATING SYSTEM INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER? If you refuse to accept THEIR security recommendations then why are you still going out and buying THEIR products and using THEIR operating system? It's one thing not to trust "the government" if you're a conspiracy theorist. It is another thing entirely to say you do not trust Microsoft when at the same time you blatantly run their operating system. THAT sir, makes absolutely no sense.[Edited by nosecretnow on 2005-02-23 13:49:04]
Spike said:
[quote]4 - And as for freedom of choice? Have you forgotten that the patches are coming from the company that BUILT THE OPERATING SYSTEM INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER? If you refuse to accept THEIR security recommendations then why are you still going out and buying THEIR products and using THEIR operating system? It's one thing not to trust "the government" if you're a conspiracy theorist. It is another thing entirely to say you do not trust Microsoft when at the same time you blatantly run their operating system. THAT sir, makes absolutely no sense.[Edited by nosecretnow on 2005-02-23 13:49:04][/quote]acctually, that arguement is completely flawed.I drive a volvo. Do you really think I'm going to go out of my way to get it serviced at a proper volvo dealership? Iven if I chose to, is it really a requirement for me to drive my car, and would it be any the worse to drivefor being serviced by my own hands?
nosecretnow said:
[b]Originally posted by Spike:[/b][quote]acctually, that arguement is completely flawed.I drive a volvo. Do you really think I'm going to go out of my way to get it serviced at a proper volvo dealership? Iven if I chose to, is it really a requirement for me to drive my car, and would it be any the worse to drivefor being serviced by my own hands?[/quote]You have a valid argument, but your Volvo cannot drive itself all over town, slamming into innocent pedestrians, can it?Windows on the other hand, is a loaded gun waiting to misfire. If your Volvo were as flaw-infested as Windows, would you even dare get behind the wheel of it?
howard_hopkinso said:
Hello nosecretnow.I have read your comments with interest and whilst I do agree with some of them I feel that I must point out the following. I would love to use Linux if it were a proper alternative to MS Windows and was fully supported by the software vendors.I bought my copy of Windows XP quite some time ago and it is fully updated except for SP2. This is due to the fact that I have installed SP2 twice with disasterous results for my system. The first time i installed was via Windows updates.The second time I installed SP2 was after a full format and reinstall of Windows XP and without doing any other updates I installed SP2 from the MS SP2 cd and still had the same problems of my system crashing to the point of having to reformat again.It was with this in mind that I decided that never again would I install SP2.As for why am I still using MS products. That`s simply because due to MS having a virtual monopoly I don`t feel that I have any real choice.Further more are you suggesting that by installing SP2 the threat of virii malware etc is diminished? I don`t think so because there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case. You only have to look at the Techspot forums to know that. I.E lots of posts from people who have SP2, infected with virii etc. Also new virii etc that specifically target SP2 are emerging all the time.I dont personally blame MS for any of this as I don`t think that any OS can be perfectly secure.I do believe however that governments could do a lot more to disuade the virii writers by making the penalties for such activities totally abhorent to the people whome indulge in this activity.I concede that a lot of PC users haven`t a clue about security. Alas I fear this will always be the case.You are entitled to your point of view as am I, And would defend your right to disagree with me or anyone else you choose to.Surely that is what freedom of choice is all about.On some points however I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.Regards Howard
luvr said:
To be honest, I don't understand what the fuss is all about.Why don't you simply disable Automatic Updates if you don't want Microsoft to mess with your system whenever and however it sees fit?It's what I did, and I'm perfectly happy that way.Having said that, I'm already running SP2 anyway, but I'm not running the Microsoft Windows Firewall (I'm using the far superior ZoneAlarm product instead); I disabled the Security Center service (because "Microsoft" and "Security" are contradictory terms), plus a whole slew of other services; I even deleted the Support and Remote Assistance user accounts (or whatever they were called - I can no longer look them up, because they no longer exist).My browser is Mozilla FireFox (I only use Internet Explorer if I don't have a choice - e.g., for online banking; however, if my current bank keeps refusing to support FireFox, then I may one day decide to switch banks). I'm not running any anti-virus package (I don't need it); I won't install Microsoft anti-adware (I'm running LavaSoft Ad-aware, and that's doing a great job).My system works great this way - and I won't engage in that Microsoft-bashing nonsense - 95 to 99 percent of which is just plain envy anyway. Instead, I silently experiment with Linux, and evaluate its advantages and its limitations, and time will tell to what extent that can replace Windows for me.To me, all this "Like it or not - Microsoft will force SP2 on you" rubbish sounds like the same kind of FUD that everyone keeps complaining about when Microsoft plays that very same game.
nosecretnow said:
[b]Originally posted by howard_hopkinso:[/b][quote]Hello nosecretnow.I have read your comments with interest and whilst I do agree with some of them I feel that I must point out the following. I would love to use Linux if it were a proper alternative to MS Windows and was fully supported by the software vendors.I bought my copy of Windows XP quite some time ago and it is fully updated except for SP2. This is due to the fact that I have installed SP2 twice with disasterous results for my system. The first time i installed was via Windows updates.The second time I installed SP2 was after a full format and reinstall of Windows XP and without doing any other updates I installed SP2 from the MS SP2 cd and still had the same problems of my system crashing to the point of having to reformat again.It was with this in mind that I decided that never again would I install SP2.As for why am I still using MS products. That`s simply because due to MS having a virtual monopoly I don`t feel that I have any real choice.Further more are you suggesting that by installing SP2 the threat of virii malware etc is diminished? I don`t think so because there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case. You only have to look at the Techspot forums to know that. I.E lots of posts from people who have SP2, infected with virii etc. Also new virii etc that specifically target SP2 are emerging all the time.I dont personally blame MS for any of this as I don`t think that any OS can be perfectly secure.I do believe however that governments could do a lot more to disuade the virii writers by making the penalties for such activities totally abhorent to the people whome indulge in this activity.I concede that a lot of PC users haven`t a clue about security. Alas I fear this will always be the case.You are entitled to your point of view as am I, And would defend your right to disagree with me or anyone else you choose to.Surely that is what freedom of choice is all about.On some points however I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.Regards Howard[/quote]I've noticed, a time or two, that sometimes the installation of SP2 for XP causes problems not because of XP in itself but because of the hardware on which it is installed. I'm not saying this is your case, but my experience with many users of XP is that they have installed it on hardware that simply is not intended for it. And the installation of SP2 makes it doubly troublesome.Let me provide an example: I once owned an HP Pavilion. Ir was a dumpy little machine, 700 MHz, 256 megs of RAM and came with the dreaded Windows ME. I decided to be novel and install XP on it. I did and it seemed to run perfectly. I installed SP1 when it came out and it worked reasonably well, except I did have to find some upgraded video driver for it.Then came XP SP2... I installed that and all hell broke loose. The video reverted to a horrible 640X480 and 16 colors. I tried and tried for three days to reinstall the video driver, to tweak the driver, to figure out what I could possibly do, but nothing worked.Initially I blamed SP2 for "causing" my woes. Then common sense set in. My computer had been designed for Windows ME. It was old. It was completely non-upgradeable. It was, essentially, a piece of junk.Virtually every new computer sold today absolutely will not run Windows 95. However, if you happen to be one of the diehards who insists that Windows 95 is the best thing since sliced bread, then when you try installing Windows 95 on your new computer and it gives a series of page protection and related faults and refuses to boot up will you then blame Microsoft? Well, some might, but Microsoft is not to blame - the hardware is simply incompatible with the operating system, that's all.So, I guess what I'm saying is - SP2 is an upgrade, adding functionality, security and a wide variety of tweaks to the Windows XP operating system. This comes at a cost sometimes. You could argue that Microsoft is "forcing" people with older hardware to upgrade against their will, but the fact of life is technology (and corporations like Microsoft) cannot and will not stop and wait for users to upgrade. Were that the case we'd all still be driving horse-driven carriages...
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.