XP SP2 glitches to trip up one in 10 upgrades - report

The Register (U.K.) ^ | September 2, 2004 | John Leyden

[Stoat]

One in 10 corporate PC users will encounter difficulties in upgrading to Windows XP Service Pack 2, according to AssetMetrix. Smaller firms will be hit hardest by compatibility problems between their applications and the much anticipated update of Microsoft's flagship operating system, the Canadian asset management firm says.

Microsoft has issued a list of applications that require modification in order to work properly with XP SP2. The list has been in a state of flux since XP SP2 was released. But based on the current list of approximately 60 applications with SP2 compatibility problems, AssetMetrix reckons that an average company using Windows XP will encounter problems with SP2 on 10.3 per cent of its Windows XP-based PCs.

Win XP SP2 made its debut as a beta in March. It bundles major security revisions and a new Windows update procedure, and additions include: Windows Security Centre; automatically turning on Windows Firewall; and browsing enhancements to Internet Explorer (providing far more control of ActiveX controls, for example).

Problem application require "unblocking" (or manual reconfiguration) because XP SP2 sets Windows Firewall on by default. Other applications suffer a loss of functionality after SP2 is installed. Both types of problems were considered in AssetMetrix's study.

The analysis reviewed the installation of specific software - identified by Microsoft as having various compatibility and functionality issues with SP2 - on more than 44,000 Windows XP-based PCs from over 340 companies. AssetMetrix study showed that companies with less than 100 XP installations had an average impact of around 12 per cent, while larger companies tended to have closer to six per cent of their Windows XP PCs affected.

[PAR35]

Office 97 wouldn't work,

Do they still support 97? They probably are trying to force you to upgrade to a newer version.

[Don Munn]

Oh, they still have up grades, but there is some conflict between the XP upgrade and Office 97.

I seen others post that they have had problems with it on home units like mine and even office computers.

[Cicero]

No problems here. I had to manually configure it to close down windows firewall and not to monitor my ZoneAlarm firewall or Norton Antivirus, but it put those choices up front for me so they were easy to find. After I did that I've had no trouble.

After reading the comment above, I just deleted an unneeded link from my WinExplorer toolbar, and no problems with that.

I was unable to pick up email from the Compuserve Classic POP3 mail server with Outlook Express while SpamPal was active, so I have turned it off for the moment until I find out what the conflict is. Probably the SpamPal beta needs updating.

[martin_fierro]

Ditto that.

[Salgak]

Uh. . .why ? Does Office 97 do what the user wants ? If there is no compelling need to upgrade, then upgrading helps nothing but Microsoft.

Hell, my OVEN is 14 years old, but guess what, it still cooks dinner just fine: by your argument, it's time to run over to Home Depot and buy a new one. . .

[donozark]

Many are reporting that while download/install goes fine, when they re-start PC, WIN XP HOME will not re-start...

Tech friend of mine says "...we are waiting for a solution from Microsoft." Isn't the entire free world?

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[unixfox]

So far the only glitch I found was, when Windows XP Professional starts the spash screen it doesn't show Professional anymore, it's simply Windows XP.

Anybody else notice this?

[Chad Fairbanks]

I've been using XP SP2 since before the beta release here at work and the only issues I faced were security-vulnerable apps that no longer worked by default due to firewalls, restrictions on access between Internet Zone and Local Machine Zones etc...

This is probably the best SP release MS we have ever made, and the benefits far outweight the few minor issues people may or may not run into...

[roadcat]

I upgraded to SP2 a couple days ago, and was mildly surprised to see it actually fix some problems. PC runs a lot faster and better. Then again, I haven't tested all my applications...

[SoDak]

I have an installed base of close to 12,000 users, and this very problem has been making my life hell this week.

[NationSoConceived]

Continuing along in your analogy, if you are using WinXP, the oven now works differently. If you try to cook with the same old recipe, it won't work right.

I am not saying that this makes sense, I'm just saying that is the way it is.

Operating systems are not all the same under the hood. They try to build in translators for software that will allow them to be backwards compatible, but once you get too many layers of these, they just break down, or they are not included because it would make the saoftware too bulky.

[Chad Fairbanks]

But look at the bright side - we've tightened up some stuff so you'll have fewer idiot users who do things they shouldn't, and end up making your life hell several times a year... ;0)

[Calvin Locke]

Does Office 97 do what the user wants ?

LOL. I recall a William F. Buckley interview a couple of years ago. He was still pounding away on an old (maybe even DOS)
version of WordStar. "I have all my macros set up the way I want..."

I'll switch completely over to Sun's offering if they screw up Office 97.

My Windows update feature started to d/l some stuff the other day, and I went to re-install a new video card, and I can't
get the install CD to run properly now.

Coincidence? I'll try to find out tonight.

[Bush2000]

Unfortunately, there is a price to be paid for security. People have complained for years that Windows boxes were easy to break into. XP SP2 changes all that. Hackers don't particularly like SP2's new firewall because it shuts down all inbound port attacks (ie NETBIOS, LANMAN, etc). Which means that SP2 users won't be getting slammed with worm attacks. Consequently, I think that MS deserves credit for getting some things right -- and naysayers should just chill out: You can't have it both ways. Either MS addresses the security problem -- or it doesn't. I applaud the fact that they did.

The biggest issue here seems to be misbehaved network-oriented applications created by 3rd party vendors (and admittedly some by Microsoft). Again, blame MS for its own application problems -- but by the same standard 3rd party vendors need to be held accountable for theirs. If you're experiencing problems, the vendor needs to fix them. I know that isn't easy with an install base of 12,000 users -- but it's true. You've probably already done this, but you will want to check with vendors to see if they have any patches or upgrades which coincide with SP2.

[SoDak]

I don't care a whit about XP's security or lack thereof. Our desktops have only one purpose in life, and that is to act as a conduit between the user and the AIX database server. The first thing we do is disable the firewall.

[Bush2000]

I don't care a whit about XP's security or lack thereof. Our desktops have only one purpose in life, and that is to act as a conduit between the user and the AIX database server. The first thing we do is disable the firewall.

Great. So the instant some moron user runs an infected piece of software and unwittingly initiates a worm attack within your corporate firewall -- thus infecting all of your freshly updated SP2 machines -- you're toast. WTF. Haven't you considered the long-term consequences of disabling the firewall? Bad mojo, IMO.

[TomServo]

You can't have it both ways.

Bump...

[SoDak]

How will the end-use get software onto my desktop without a floppy, cd-rom, or any other removable drive? He doesn't even have internet access on my desktops. I'm not interested in MS's version of a desktop firewall.

[SoDak]

How will the end-use get software onto my desktop without a floppy, cd-rom, or any other removable drive? He doesn't even have internet access on my desktops. I'm not interested in MS's version of a desktop firewall.