Service Pack2 Sucks

garv221

Anyone agree? After months of holding off, I pushed it out via SUS over the weekend.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

mark_piza

I totally agree!!

Drakonblayde

I dunno, once you turn off that damnable security center and the firewall, it's not so bad. At least it's a lot more restrictive and paranoid on what it'll let users install. But yeah, it pretty much still sucks and probably will no matter what Mickeysoft does to it.

keenon

http://techexams.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4887

keatron

Well, so far I haven't had any real problems out of it. But I will say, before i rolled it out, I read lots of white papers and did lots of research. I did find some problems that it would cause for most of my clients setup, however, I just made the neccessary adjustments before rolling it out, and so far it's been seamless.

garv221

A couple of computers wouldn't reboot- Had to run a repair on it. I also hate the firewall settings & the damn notice when you renew your ip (had to turn that off as well). It just seems that this service pack is more geared toward home users & not at the coperate level. Should have been only for Home Edition.

Drakonblayde

It's geared towards making the computers idiot proof, which I don't really have a problem with, corporate or no. The service pack itself really isn't the problem, it's MS's integration process. I've had boxes that were upgraded to SP2 need a repair as well. Same thing happened with Service Pack 1. SP2 was needed because there were a whole lot of deficiencies in XP, but I personally don't do ugprades anymore. I reinstall the box with my copy of xp that has SP2 slipstreamed in. It's much less hassle for me.

Of course, that's not an option if you have 20 or more users, which I'm guessing since you uses SUS to push it out hehe

garv221

Yea, I have alot of clients, SUS was the only option. I ran the install @ 3am on night and a few computers got out of the loop & power save shut the drives off so they had issues & needed repair. I am considering removing Sp2 from our laptops. I have clients that use Cisco VPN client to log into our network through the PIX. I set them up with wireless at home & on a different IP range (can't vpn in with same ip scheme) & the damn SP2 needs configuration for wireless again! Its just a hassle. I have so much to do & this is causing a problem. I'm considering sueing gates.

RussS

Drakonblayde wrote:

It's geared towards making the computers idiot proof, which I don't really have a problem with, corporate or no.

For sure, and with the number of idiots I see almost daily I have to say that I enjoy SP2 a lot.

The service pack itself really isn't the problem, it's MS's integration process. I've had boxes that were upgraded to SP2 need a repair as well. Same thing happened with Service Pack 1.

Here I have to strongly disagree my friend. MS made many changes about how the OS allows programs to run in certain protected areas. The various software and hardware companies were made aware of these changes a long time before SP2 was released. (I actually heard this was going to be done with SP1, but was left out as they felt the manufacturers were not allowed sufficient time to change things).

SP2 was needed because there were a whole lot of deficiencies in XP, but I personally don't do ugprades anymore. I reinstall the box with my copy of xp that has SP2 slipstreamed in. It's much less hassle for me.

Good idea. This biggest issue with SP2 upgrades is that I believe they somehow get corrupted in the download stage. I have not had an upgrade from CD fail me yet.

/usr

I also haven't had any problems with SP2. Besides the nagging "security" features, it doesn't seem so bad.