Re: Need SP2 Options

The rest of the article you quoted proves my point.
If you would look at the link in my post particularly the information about
the tool referenced in the article, you would see.

The overwhelming majority do not use that tool so for them the information
in the articles does not apply.
If that tool had not been created, there would be no issue now and some
businesses would have had a problem preventing installation of SP-2.
If AU is off, you will not get SP-2.
If you do not accept the EULA, you will not get SP-2.

"...coming down o their machine unsolicited"
That will not happen and never will.
Read your article for why.

"So who told you we don't have to accept SP2?"
I understand how Windows XP, SP-2 and Windows Update works.
Again, read the article you quote.

"Why don't you prove them wrong?"
Read the article carefully, FUD at the top and facts buried below.

As for "If it aint broke, why let MS tear it up?"
Rarely happens on a well maintained computer.
Doesn't happen to me, but then I maintain my computers.
I am also sure many cancer patients wish they had seen a doctor regularly
while they were feeling good.
Also do you service equipment such as an automobile before or after problems
come up?
Have you ever heard of "Preventative Maintenance"?
Just because everything seems OK is not an accurate indicator it is OK.


--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"lee" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112931085.497584.99130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> BAD Journalism with FUD:
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/forcesp2.htm
>>
>> Bottom line: If you do not want SP-2 you will not get it and it is as
> easy
>> as not accepting it.
>>
>> Perhaps if you would post a link to the article.
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1783476,00.asp
>
>> Most of the articles like that I have read, the truth is hidden near
> the
>> bottom.
>
> Near the bottom:
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> "I can see why people would be frightened about system upgrades coming
> down o their machine unsolicited," he said. This may be why some
> organizations have been "delaying the inevitable," he said.
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> So who told you we don't have to accept SP2?
>
>> Some of these journalists prefer sensationalism over facts.
>
> Why don't you prove them wrong?
>
> [begin excerpt]
>
> On April 12, 2005, Microsoft will stop honoring the temporary blocking
> mechanism for SP2. However, this change won't affect most enterprises
> because most mid- and large-sized businesses use managed software
> deployment tools such as SUS, SMS, or other third-party products. This
> change won't affect consumers, either, because nonmanaged consumer
> machines have had access to SP2 since last August.
>
> This change will, however, affect the small subset of business
> customers who've opted to temporarily block the SP2 download because
> they don't use a formal software-deployment solution. These types of
> businesses do have a choice to make by April 12. They can opt to
> manually install SP2 on their XP desktops, or they can simply wait
> until April 12. Starting on that date, Automatic Updates will
> automatically download SP2 to all XP desktops.
>
> However--and this is the most important point--Automatic Updates won't
> automatically install SP2 at that time. Instead, you must first agree
> to the End User License Agreement (EULA) before SP2 will install via
> Automatic Updates. If you decline the EULA, SP2 won't install. End of
> controversy.
>
> You could be silly about all this and disable Automatic Updates.
> However, I strongly urge you not to do so because Automatic Updates is
> a vital conduit for critical security patches. So if you leave
> Automatic Updates on and don't want to install SP2 for some reason, you
> might simply see a bandwidth hit, although Automatic Updates does a
> good job of managing the download volume when a user is interactively
> engaged with the system. Conversely, if you'd like to install SP2 but
> are worried about bandwidth, download the installation once manually
> and apply it to each machine locally before April 12. It's that simple.
>
>
> March 23, 2005
> Understanding the Windows XP SP2 Blocking Mechanism
> Paul Thurrott
> Windows IT Pro Perspectives
> InstantDoc #45798
> Web Exclusive
>
> [end excerpt]
>
> My automatic update has been turned off since August and I haven't had
> one Windows system-related problem, not a glitch.
>
> If it aint broke, why let MS tear it up?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is WinXP SP2 ?
    ... > I do not find WinXP SP2 for download anywhere. ... Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday plans to start pushing out Windows XP Service ... Windows Automatic Updates feature for patches, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: To SP2 or not to SP2?
    ... > Windows XP Sp2 service pack. ... > people" prefer not to touch any windows updates at all. ... > years of work trying to install SP2). ... > Windows updates, which I won't be able to under my present SP1. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Outlook cant connect after KB842773 windows update
    ... For what it is worth, ... required in order to get SP2 for Windows XP thru automatic updates. ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook)
  • Re: Re-installing XP pro
    ... SP2 replaces SP1 in its entirety, ... only install SP2. ... SP2 into Windows XP a breeze: ... Windows Slipstreaming and Bootable CD Guide ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: windows update xp 2
    ... download and install all critical updates, SP2 will not install on ... To avoid that Automatic Updates tries to install SP2 at all (up to ... Toolkit to Temporarily Block Delivery of Windows XP SP2 to a PC ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
Loading