Need SP2 Options

Went to the MS SP2 website, turns out there's no way to download SP2 using
Firefox's download manager, just like I download other large files.

I can't find anything on the SP2 website that tells me how big the SP2
update actually is. I'm on dialup, so I wonder why they don't break the
download into several chunks because my ISP only allows 6 hour sessions,
then I'm get disconnected and the download has to start all over - right?

So what's the problem just breaking it up into a few chunks? The MS
geniuses can't figure out how to do that?

So there's no possible way I can download SP2.

My computer's set up just fine. If MS demands that I install SP2, they can
send me a CD. Otherwise, what are they gonna do? Maybe the download's
200MB - I don't know, can't find out - but they'll never get 200MB through
my connection in 5 hours.

It seems to me, if MS can't divide the download into smaller pieces
manageable for dialup connections, and they're not willing to send me a CD
with SP2 on it at no charge, then they should just bug off.

What's the official policy on bugging off?


Lee

Lee;
The complete SP-2 is 272 MB.
You can either download SP-2 or order the CD free, both of those options
detailed in Step 1 on this link:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

Microsoft does not demand you install SP-2, what gave you that idea?
However Microsoft recommends it if safety and security are important to you.

It is interesting you missed this information.
Where did you start your search and where did it take you?

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


"Lee Harrison" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9631E4C7E57Flhrsnrmv@207.46.248.16...
>
> Went to the MS SP2 website, turns out there's no way to download SP2 using
> Firefox's download manager, just like I download other large files.
>
> I can't find anything on the SP2 website that tells me how big the SP2
> update actually is. I'm on dialup, so I wonder why they don't break the
> download into several chunks because my ISP only allows 6 hour sessions,
> then I'm get disconnected and the download has to start all over - right?
>
> So what's the problem just breaking it up into a few chunks? The MS
> geniuses can't figure out how to do that?
>
> So there's no possible way I can download SP2.
>
> My computer's set up just fine. If MS demands that I install SP2, they
> can
> send me a CD. Otherwise, what are they gonna do? Maybe the download's
> 200MB - I don't know, can't find out - but they'll never get 200MB through
> my connection in 5 hours.
>
> It seems to me, if MS can't divide the download into smaller pieces
> manageable for dialup connections, and they're not willing to send me a CD
> with SP2 on it at no charge, then they should just bug off.
>
> What's the official policy on bugging off?
>
>
> Lee
>

I am assumeing that you are using Windows XP, Try here for a free disk.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...s/default.mspx

It says "Allow 4 to 6 weeks" but I received mine in 3 days.

You would have better results with your downloads if you use a download
program with "Reume" features. Try a web search there are many of them out
there.

"Lee Harrison" wrote:

>
> Went to the MS SP2 website, turns out there's no way to download SP2 using
> Firefox's download manager, just like I download other large files.
>
> I can't find anything on the SP2 website that tells me how big the SP2
> update actually is. I'm on dialup, so I wonder why they don't break the
> download into several chunks because my ISP only allows 6 hour sessions,
> then I'm get disconnected and the download has to start all over - right?
>
> So what's the problem just breaking it up into a few chunks? The MS
> geniuses can't figure out how to do that?
>
> So there's no possible way I can download SP2.
>
> My computer's set up just fine. If MS demands that I install SP2, they can
> send me a CD. Otherwise, what are they gonna do? Maybe the download's
> 200MB - I don't know, can't find out - but they'll never get 200MB through
> my connection in 5 hours.
>
> It seems to me, if MS can't divide the download into smaller pieces
> manageable for dialup connections, and they're not willing to send me a CD
> with SP2 on it at no charge, then they should just bug off.
>
> What's the official policy on bugging off?
>
>
> Lee
>
>

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Lee;
> The complete SP-2 is 272 MB.
> You can either download SP-2 or order the CD free, both of those
options
> detailed in Step 1 on this link:
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm
>
> Microsoft does not demand you install SP-2, what gave you that idea?

What gave me that idea:

Push Is Coming to Shove for XP SP2 Deployment
By John Pallatto
April 6, 2005

Affecting all the XP users who have been avoiding or procrastinating
about installing the Windows XP Service Pack 2 upgrade, Microsoft is
about to make the decision for them.

On April 12, Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to turn on its Automatic
Update service, which will deploy the XP Service Pack 2 to all PCs
connected to the Internet regardless of whether corporate IT
departments or individual PC users have prepared for it.

DoorKnob wrote:
> I am assumeing that you are using Windows XP, Try here for a free
disk.
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...s/default.mspx

Thanks. Seems like the MS website kept telling me I needed Internet
Exploder to place that order.

See the previously posted news story.

Well for one thing, why dont you just use IE for a few minutes while you
request the CD? Also, if that does not work take your computer to a friends
house who has a High Speed connection. It just sounds to me that you have a
case of the "I hate Microsoft". There is nothing wrong with IE. Now that
alot of people are using Firefox there are ALOT of new security holes being
found with Firefox. So... I reccomend IE because Microsoft patches it ALL
the time, and it is imbedded in the OS which makes it ten times more
efficient.

"lee" wrote:

>
> DoorKnob wrote:
> > I am assumeing that you are using Windows XP, Try here for a free
> disk.
> >
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...s/default.mspx
>
> Thanks. Seems like the MS website kept telling me I needed Internet
> Exploder to place that order.
>
> See the previously posted news story.
>
>

Jesse wrote:
> Well for one thing, why dont you just use IE for a few minutes while
you
> request the CD?

I decide which browser I use.

> Also, if that does not work take your computer to a friends
> house who has a High Speed connection.

No.

> It just sounds to me that you have a
> case of the "I hate Microsoft".

I'm tired of Microsloth.

> There is nothing wrong with IE.

Why is it that hackers can attack me through Internet Exploder even if
I never use it? Why can't I just uninstall the piece of junk and
remove the threat of being hacked through software I never use?

Answer me that.

> Now that
> alot of people are using Firefox there are ALOT of new security holes
being
> found with Firefox.

Not that many, and Firefox fixed them promptly.

> So... I reccomend IE because Microsoft patches it ALL
> the time,

Because if they didn't constantly patch it hackers would own your
computer.

> and it is imbedded in the OS which makes it ten times more
> efficient.

Also means whenever IE's hacked, the hackers have control of your
system.

Just like this enforced SP2 update, enforced storage of Exploder is a
needless security risk, and a poor excuse for a web browser.

[begin excerpt]

Push Is Coming to Shove for XP SP2 Deployment
By John Pallatto
April 6, 2005

Affecting all the XP users who have been avoiding or procrastinating
about installing the Windows XP Service Pack 2 upgrade, Microsoft is
about to make the decision for them.

On April 12, Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to turn on its Automatic
Update service, which will deploy the XP Service Pack 2 to all PCs
connected to the Internet regardless of whether corporate IT
departments or individual PC users have prepared for it.

[end excerpt]

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.
Most of the articles like that I have read, the truth is hidden near the
bottom.
Some of these journalists prefer sensationalism over facts.

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


"lee" <> wrote in message
> What gave me that idea:
>
> Push Is Coming to Shove for XP SP2 Deployment
> By John Pallatto
> April 6, 2005
>
> Affecting all the XP users who have been avoiding or procrastinating
> about installing the Windows XP Service Pack 2 upgrade, Microsoft is
> about to make the decision for them.
>
> On April 12, Microsoft Corp. is scheduled to turn on its Automatic
> Update service, which will deploy the XP Service Pack 2 to all PCs
> connected to the Internet regardless of whether corporate IT
> departments or individual PC users have prepared for it.
>

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?

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" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>
> 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?