The problem is that if you're going to wait for a version that works with absolutely everything, then you're going to be waiting forever. Sure, there are some incompatabilities that cropped up, but fixes to those could very well break something else. It's impossible to test every hardware/software configuration...
I can understand waiting if one of the specific issues impacts you or your business, but I have a feeling that's a fairly small group of people. All of the problems I've read about so far have been pretty minor.
Absolutely true. But in the case of the IT department, SP2 initially breaks a lot of vital things, especially stuff that is related to the network here at school. If they fix those issues (and MS will, we're talking Novell stuff here so they will make sure it works) then our IT department could care less if it runs with Unreal 2 or not. And a lot of people use NAV and the fact that there's a problem with that is also a big issue (we use Sophos).
No version of this pack will make it 100% compatible, but they'll get a lot closer with a rev or two. So wait for that unless you really need the stuff that SP2 offers now and don't mind having to potentially fix some things, then by all means download away!
Microsoft has created a way for corporations to set up their network admin policies to block the download of SP2, and they've delayed the SP2 autoupdate for XP Professional until next week so that corporations have more time to put the block in place.
If you got SP2 from somewhere other than the Windows Update site, I think it makes sense that SP2 won't show up in the list of things you've downloaded from Windows Update. What matters is that Windows Update knows you already have it and doesn't want you to download it and install it again.
And we should keep in mind, that these IT people get phone calls on broken mice when they only need to get cleaned, and computers that don't turn on when the person kicked the plug out of the outlet. Of course companies are going to have problems with the update. That is one reason why so many of them still use Win 98.
yes, wayne. as we know the majority of folks using computers nowadays are pretty much computer illiterate. however, for most of us that frequent this board i think that we have enough knowledge to implement the 'fixes' that microsoft has included in sp2 without actually installing sp2.
i agree that microsoft should have taken more time to get out the bugs of sp2 prior to its release. when you have a major software patch interacting so poorly with very popular programs such as zone alarm and symantec products then it demonstrates to me that microsoft's r & d did not give due diligence to making sp2 as clean as it should have been.
this was an opportunity for microsoft to demonstrate that they are trying to stay ahead of the ball instead of always being a dollar short and a day late when it comes to patches and fixes for xp.
they did nothing to improve their reputation among those that are tech savvy with this rushed effort.
i am not a microsoft basher. i just know that if i were to consistently put out a half finished product, and often times late, my business would have to close shop because i would never get any additional business.
hopefully, longhorn will be all that microsoft is promising.
Ok, so far, I've seen at least 200 rollouts of SP2. And so far, the problems have been not only minimal, but to a large part, fixed.
* Issues with Norton: Norton addressed them immediately with a patch available via LiveUpdate * Nero was updated to provide a new version that included not only some fixes, but new features
And so on. The biggest "hitch" to SP2 was a simple one: by default, Firewall was turned on; in a corporate network, that's a bad thing, as it prevented password domain authentication, CITRIX, etc. But how many home users run into that? If you're corporate IT, those issues could also be helpd with the corporate rollout kit, which allows companies to push install (via SMS or even stuff like Kixtart or AD policies) versions without that feature enabled.
I think there is a lot of "hay" being made about how "terrible" SP2 is, when about 2 months ago, people were bitching why is it taking so long, and the fact that it had been repeatedly delayed.
Using it on 5 machines in my house, I haven't had a single problem to speak of. And having two corporate networks that rolled over to it as well, all we've noticed is that some really nagging problems have been completely addressed in regards to dos-box emulation and performance with command line apps.
Perhaps, but Rob Gillespie only rather recently expressed his opinion that not having it turned on by default was one of the weaknesses of Windows XP. I think it depends on the environment where it's used, and you can always deploy it in an office environment with the firewall turned off.
Whatever: I just installed it on two of my main computers (including the "gateway" machine, which has the Internet Sharing function) and I must say: impeccable! Both the wireless and wired parts of my LAN work like a charm. It even detected an internet contact program (by the manufacturer of my ISDN-card), which I have for more than 3 years - and which is now blocked.
Small disadvantage: when I turn the firewall off on the 'internal' IC-card of the ICS-machine, the Security Centre keeps insisting that "the firewall is off", while it is "on" on the internet connection. But I found that turning it on on that other connection too doesn't seem to harm!
It does recognize my McAfee virus protection (and the fact that it's upgraded and updated to the current day).
I can see all workgroup computers, on both machines, my most important programs are all working fine (one bank-client program caused the firewall to ask if I wanted to unblock it's connection with the bank when I was dialling in - excellent) and all network-devices operate, and are accessible, as usual. The one W2000 machine in the network (server) operates fine too (accessible as well as seeing the other machines itself).
I'm now going to install SP2 on the remaining XP-computers.
Looks like a very good job by MS, kudos for that, I'm impressed. And as usual it didn't cost me a penny!
You can click (or double-click?) that warning mark. It will bring the Security Center up.
It's a warning, and it allows you to either do something about it or not. You also can switch those warnings off, if you so like. Or part of it (e.g. if you have a firewall of your own, or you're not the administrator of the company and there are reasons why certain function are switched off on peripheral PC's).