SP2 M$ OS destruction!

You, my friend, are wrong again. If you own XP, you do not have to pay to upgrade to SP2.

If you own an old version, than you are paying to upgrade to the new OS.

 

Anthony,

Has Microsoft ever guaranteed that their OS (any version) is 100% secure? Do they use that language in their promotional materials or product descriptions? Maybe it's just that consumers make an assumption without doing any research?

For the last time, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Keep using 2000 or 98 or 95 or 3.1 or whatever you want, just know that's it's "unpatched". Switch over to linux. Get a calculator and notepad - do whatever you choose to do. You don't have to UPGRADE if you don't want to.

If Microsoft had to include free lifetime UPGRADES with all of it's products they would just triple the selling price. Pay for now or pay for it later, if you want the latest and greatest you have to be willing to open the wallet.

It's ridiculous to think that Microsoft should be expected to provide free UPGRADES for every user of Windows forever. Maybe it'll happen if all their developers decide to work for free. This is what you would do though, right? A one-time purchase entitles you to a free copy of every UPGRADE ever released. Not just for Microsoft products of course, this should apply to every software company.

To think I paid to UPGRADE to Adobe 6.0 when I had already bought 5.0. They should have just sent it to me for free.

 

Do you have a problem understanding English NC, when I said 49% of windows users that means those who do not have XP.

Are you sure you read and understand, do you just gloss over stuff, sometimes you make me wonder about you NC.

Read this if you wish to gain understanding about the issues at hand.

http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,1650964,00.asp

Get real man

 

Yup, when new cars came out with digital dash display, I am sure AC was at the dealership asking for a free car J/K A/C

 

I am not reading anymore of your SPAM.

 

I found a better article on the issues at hand:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=35888&postcount=122

 

Who cares what you read, even if presented with plain research from the best experts you are still not able to learn NC, that also is the case with GFC.

You guys CLAIM to be experts, but really, this is not the case.

 

I thought you were going to disect my thread...

Also, when did NC or GFC ever claim that they were experts?

I don't even know what GFC does - although I do like his blog

 

Where did I claim to be an expert? Can you post a link to it?

 

Slightly off topic for a second;

By day I work in advertising for a business to consumer company. After hours/weekends I'm a part owner of a technology solutions company. There's three partners total, all with skill sets in different technology related fields. We all sell our own services, as well as cross selling the services that any of the partners can provide.

Thanks for the compliment on the blog…it's new but I'm happy with how it's coming together.

 

AC, that sounds like a challenge. I am game if you are.

 

READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH, I WROTE NONE OF IT



http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1650796,00.asp



Microsoft has been reticent to commit publicly on how, when and whether it would make the

browser-specific security fixes that it delivered as part of Windows XP Service Pack 2

available to users of older versions of Windows.

But this week, the Redmond software vendor issued a definitive statement regarding its

back-porting intentions. The decision: No SP2 fixes—not even ones such as the SP2 pop-up

blocker or the ActiveX control blocker—will be offered for users of older versions of

Windows and IE (Internet Explorer).





Microsoft's message is that if you want any of these features, you must upgrade to

Windows XP and/or Windows XP Tablet Edition running SP2. Next year, Microsoft will make

the appropriate SP2 security fixes, including some of the IE ones, available to Windows

Server 2003 users via Service Pack 1.

Microsoft never publicly committed to providing any of the SP2 fixes for users of older

versions of Windows or Internet Explorer. But company officials privately told a select

group of developers earlier this year of plans to port some of the IE-specific fixes to

the version of IE 6 for Windows 2000 (Service Pack 5 update).

It also told some partners that it was "considering strongly" the idea of making the

IE-specific SP2 fixes available for Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition and

Windows Millennium Edition.





When asked of these plans, a Microsoft spokesman provided the following statement: "We

never committed to back-porting technologies. Our commitment has been to provide the

greatest possible level of security to all our customers. We will continue to do this for

IE and for previous versions of Windows.

"Trying to retrofit older technologies—which were never designed with the current

environment in mind—with current advancements creates a set of challenges that makes it

difficult for customers to deploy and doesn't provide a level of security that we feel

confident in providing to our customers," the spokesman said.

"Based on these conclusions, Microsoft's resources are focused on keeping customers

current with latest security updates and developing new products that will make them

safer and more productive," he added.



Some Microsoft customers said they see the company's refusal to back-port SP2 security

fixes to older versions of Windows and IE as little more than Microsoft's attempt to

force users to upgrade to Windows XP. Quite a number of enterprises are still running

older versions of Windows, especially Windows 2000, on the desktop.

Microsoft's decision not to port SP2 fixes to Windows 2000, in particular, doesn't sit

well with Michael Cherry, senior analyst with a Kirkland, Wash.-based research outfit

called Directions on Microsoft.



"I don't really think they have any requirement to make any fixes or changes available on

the old 9.X code base of Windows 98 and Windows ME," Cherry said. But "the one version of

Windows that I have a problem with is Windows 2000, which I believe is still in

mainstream support.

"There may be technical reasons why adopting the changes in IE to Windows 2000 is

difficult, but Microsoft should be able to overcome this. After all, they own the code

for both products," Cherry said.

 

Yeah, I loved the article with minstrel.

I learnt a lot about the guy from that one, and I've known him (On forums) for a while now...

So thanks for that

 

You see how I did that...

Just like editing a video

 

Yeah SE, I like these guys too, but when they make comments that are off base I will let them know about it.

As far as disect your thread, if you were here I would disect YOU

Do your own research guys, I have provided you every article and link I have seen, if that is not enough for you all, then just move on to another thread and let others contribute, come back when you have learned more and cooled off a bit

 

Quote from the below URL


http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article2/0,1759,1653975,00.asp




IDC's numbers suggest to me that more than half of our customers are going to have to upgrade now if they want to keep their systems relatively safe. Why not make them even safer by upgrading them to an operating system that's not successfully cracked every other month?

Or you could simply replace Internet Explorer with another browser. Microsoft's reason for not releasing IE 6 for other versions of Windows is that the Web browser is an integral part of Windows.

What nonsense! It's a Web browser, and it's no more vital to the operating system than the paint job is on the engine of my Toyota MR2.

I've found Firefox to be an easy upgrade from IE. I use it myself on all of my Windows boxes, since, even after XP SP2, IE isn't safe.

But I'm sorry to report that while the latest beta of Firefox works well, upgrading existing Firefox installations is far too much trouble for most IT staffs.



If the Mozilla folks get their upgrade act together, though, moving to Firefox might prove the easiest way to keep older Windows users happy for minimal expense.

Realistically, I know most of your customers are going to want to stick with the devil, ah, operating-system company, that they know.

With that in mind, while I think you should certainly keep open the Linux option—or for that matter the Mac option—it's time to start talking to your hardware partners to see if you can get volume discounts on XP-capable systems.

Your customers may not like it one darn bit. In fact, I'm sure many of them will have a hissy fit when they discover that their IT budget has just been blown up. But the bottom line is that Microsoft is forcing its enormous installed base of older systems to upgrade.

It's up to you as their IT business partner to make the process as painless as possible, even if Microsoft isn't.

 

More biased articles. Anyone who refers to a company as "the devil" is obviously biased and anything they write should be interpreted with that in mind.

Anthony, your solution is still to give away every future versions of Windows for free to anyone who's ever purchased any version of Windows, right? I don't need an article, just an answer will suffice.

 

I do my own research every day. I call it real world experience.

 

GFC, the issue is not only the DEFECTIVE SP2 update that has security holes in it, but the lack of giving computer users a secure browser, you know that many folks are telling all of us not to use IE.

But M$ will not even update the browser without folks paying to update to XP.

If you think that independent experts who have followed M$ for 20 years plus do not have the right to label them then you have a problem.

Like I mentioned, I can show you many articles to prove what I say, why don't you show me some to prove that XP SP2 is secure, see if you can find any

To answer your question once and for all, I agree with this guy (is he bias also), this was pulled from another article I posted in this thread a few posts ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't really think they have any requirement to make any fixes or changes available on

the old 9.X code base of Windows 98 and Windows ME," Cherry said. But "the one version of

Windows that I have a problem with is Windows 2000, which I believe is still in

mainstream support.

"There may be technical reasons why adopting the changes in IE to Windows 2000 is

difficult, but Microsoft should be able to overcome this. After all, they own the code

for both products," Cherry said.

 

I have a question here for the main posters here. This may be considered a bit off topic, so sorry if it is construed that way.

1. Do you think that XP was released without flaws?

2. If you do think it was flawed, do you think that it was ok for M$ to release it that way? What if anything do you think they should do to remedy those flaws?