J. Greg Mackinnon wrote:
> But seriously, folks, is there real point in trying to avoid SP2? It is
> going to get on your system eventually. Resistance is futile, you will
> be assimilated (especially if you turn on automatic update).
Many of our machines don't even have SP1.... but have gotten the
critical updates to keep them relatively trouble-free.
> Personally, I LIKE SP2. Pop-up blocker, decent personal firewall, IE
> extensions disabler, and major Tablet PC TIP enhancements are all
> excellent features. Additionally, pre-installation of SP2 on our
> systems images will help us to avoid more lengthy patch management in
> the future. SP2 includes something like 150 separate updates... manual
> installation of those patches is very painful.
We try not to run IE anymore and already have a pop-up blocker via
Mozilla or Google toolbar.
I don't find a biweekly visit to Windows Update for *critical* fixes
very painful or even all that time-consuming, but I don't do this for
50+ machines either. (If I did I suppose I'd make it more automated anyhow).
I'm not advocating against SP2. Just wondering if it's really
*necessary* from the standpoint of wanting to run a secure desktop
(insofar as WinXP can be secure). We've had pretty good luck with a
service-pack-free XP install so far (knock wood). Is it just luck?
Probably not advisable for a public lab but seems OK for us in a small
research lab where user behavior is a little more predictable.
> Kelvin Chu wrote:
>> (Which one of the two is SJC?)
Ernest W. Buford
Rubenstein School of Environment
and Natural Resources
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405