Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) introduces a number of new features that help increase the performance and the security of your system. These changes also affect the operations and functionality of some programs.
Programs that may behave differently in Windows XP Service Pack 2
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
…that there are loads of Microsoft-developed programs too in that list.
Kazaa has a problem? Kazaalite seems to work fine 😉
All said and done, I am quite happy with SP2 – nothing broke on my computer (touch wood!). It doesnt detect my personal firewall proggy – Sygate, but that was a minor annoyance.
Regards,
The Shaitan
… so far.
In corporate environments where thousands of machines run WindowsXP, that translates into a support nightmare.
My pagefile useage on my laptop went up from around 90mb to 122mb after installing SP2. Hrk, says I.
with AVG from Grisoft. Freezes, with only mouse that can move. Solid Keyboard lock up. Only solution was to reboot. I did a Burn in Test on both HDs, all ok. I did a memtest86 on my RAM, all ok. I removed the AV and it was ok. I put the AV back on and the PC starts to lockup again.
i think everyone should wait for few months till the major software packages are updated before installing SP2. it just seems too much of a hussle right now.
Virutal PC <- that one is their own product
VewNow 1.05
Norman Personla Firewall
Sometimes they even misspelt the vendors name.
Lucky Dome 3 works
“Additionally, software vendors may have resolved some of these issues.”
So… Microsoft breaks things and expects others to resolve issues it created? IMHO this is a very dishonest way of playing! Others are not responsible for Microsoft’s poor technical skills, since a service pack is expected to maintain backward compatibility with previously released apps.
read that Nero entry?! All other versions of the 5.x series work but the one mentioned? Or does it mean this is the only one tested? Or all version newer/older than the one mentioned won’t work..? Get a grip MS – there are 2548756 gazillion-dada-dillion revisions of Nero…
Yeah, it’s not like it has been known for a year that this would happen to improve security. No, really.
SP2 contains the sorts of fixes people on this site have been requesting for years: it was always going to change the Windows experience.
I suspect we’ll find that the applications which followed the documented parts of the Windows API will all still work, and that those which used quick’n’dirty hacks or workarounds are more likely to be broken.
If this is the case, responsibility most definitely lies with the manufacturer of the software, not Microsoft.
Isn’t nero also meant to be locked into the drive it is packaged with? Or am I wrong about that?
“Isn’t nero also meant to be locked into the drive it is packaged with? Or am I wrong about that?”
You probably can’t answer this with a plain yes or no, and this isn’t unique to Nero either, but applies to all bundled/OEM software.
Manufacturers do write stuff like that into their license, but depending on where you live this may or may not be a valid clause. In Germany, you can have a good laugh about it, I always buy “un-bundled” software cheap.
This is mainly a US thing, if I am correct. But this is not a Nero issue.
“So… Microsoft breaks things and expects others to resolve issues it created? IMHO this is a very dishonest way of playing! Others are not responsible for Microsoft’s poor technical skills, since a service pack is expected to maintain backward compatibility with previously released apps.”
Things really really aren’t that simple. There are a lot of deprecated APIs and practices (requiring an Admin user) that third parties continue to use despite being told they’re going to go away/change. So a big relase like this is a balance between breaking badly behaved/buggy apps (and every app has bugs) and working round their problems. Often in the past Microsoft has erred too far the other way and left things broken to keep apps working. See the links below for some interesting reading on this subject.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/archive/2003/10/15/55296.aspx
Thankfully I’m using OS X and amn’t worried about this, however it is an interesting topic for debate – how far should backwards compatability go, and at the expense of new features? The same kind of problems come up with Longhorn and OS X versus OS 9 (where they took the smart road of emulating the old system inside the new).
Well, I assume this “poor comment” thing refers to your own comment, since you used it as its title.
“badly behaved/buggy apps” – are you suggesting that ALL those apps listed are badly behaved/buggy? I suppose companies like IBM, Adobe, EA, HP, etc… should be warned about the deprecated APIs and practices their programmers use. Shame on them!
Indeed MS is the example of a company that releases very reliable products. Every other sw manufacturer should follow their example! (not!)
I notice that many of the applications listed are Cross-platform apps, designed for code portability between Windows and Apple platforms. And no, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if trying to implement things in a way thats easily portable encourages non-compliance with the API in favour of compatibility hacks.
(PS: I was amused that they render Virtual PC as Virutal PC. Perhaps they meant Viral…)
http://www.nero.com/en/nero-up.php
So what exactly do they mean by they “behave differently”? Do they stop working completely? Do they lose features? Do they gain features? Do they crash the system if I try to run them? Do they change colors and sing a tune? Just a one line description of what to expect from each one would have been nice…
Of course SP2 is going to break a LOT of applications. In many ways you might consider SP2 a “new OS”. The reason for the broken applications are primarily due to work-arounds taken by vendors.(in part due to MS)
If these same vendors would have been paying closer attention during the beta cycle they could have had these issues corrected by now. It’s not as if they were prevented from access to the beta or RC’s.
Tough to blame MS for the shortcomings of some of the vendors. Keep in mind “some” of the applications being broken are rather old versions, and a few of these vendors (ms included) would like nothing more than to sell the end user a new version rather than patch the old one.
It’s that MONEY thing.
So… Microsoft breaks things and expects others to resolve issues it created? IMHO this is a very dishonest way of playing! Others are not responsible for Microsoft’s poor technical skills, since a service pack is expected to maintain backward compatibility with previously released apps.
Ok….and how long did MS give vendors to test their products on SP2? Yeah…thats right…..if a vendor really wants their products to run on the world most used OS they would take the time to make sure their product is not broken on it.
I am no fan of Microsoft but this SP2 fiasco isn’t really their fault. I’m glad they finally did something drastic about their security issues. I think this may have been the first time that security has taken precedence over backwards compatibility. While this may be hard on customers, there is no other way to do it. Software developers have been packaging and coding for Windows incorrectly for years. There are specific guidelines that should be followed but are not always followed. Microsoft finally tightened things up, of course if this was done earlier these problems would be over with by now.
Isn’t nero also meant to be locked into the drive it is packaged with? Or am I wrong about that?
Nero isn’t only shipped with burners. You can purchase a full version of the software.
Just as you can Roxio and any other one out there.
Oh and thanks bact’ for posting that update for Nero and XP SP2.
For instance what is up with this XP-lite crap. LOL!
They have to criple the product to lower the price?
“Among the great new features it offers are lower-resolution graphics, fewer networking capabilities and reduced multitasking.”
I am not seeing the purpose for this or some of the service packs features. What MS should of done is partner with a company like zonealarm and come up with real firewall and security features.
But I guess you can’t focus when you are between a penguin and a hard place.
But I guess you can’t focus when you are between a penguin and a hard place.
dude we are talking the desktop market here not the server market. Granted MS has a little tiny bit of pressure form alternatives but I don’t think they are stuck between a “penguin’ and a “hard place”
I am not seeing the purpose for this or some of the service packs features. What MS should of done is partner with a company like zonealarm and come up with real firewall and security features.
Have you eben tried SP2….they have moved in the right direction on security.
I don’t use Windows,however, I do read this site and others, and for years and years yous all wanted Windows made more secure,,,,
it happens and you all bitch about it
sort it out
dude we are talking the desktop market here not the server market. Granted MS has a little tiny bit of pressure form alternatives but I don’t think they are stuck between a “penguin’ and a “hard place”
They’re feeling more than a little pressure. Wake up and you’ll see the Penguins everywhere. Linux is more than a server OS, in case you didn’t know that…
Have you eben tried SP2….they have moved in the right direction on security.
LOL! Yeah, at the expense of any applications being functional. What a great “upgrade”! Thank ghod I’m not stuck in your Windoze world, and have upgraded to Linux! Join the 21st century and do the same.
They have to criple the product to lower the price?
See, now, that’s not a bug; that’s a feature.
As long as it boots, accesses the partitions, and has the device drivers, we can just all get on the MinGW train and start using MS products like a proper *nix system.
Yet another Redmond advertising triumph.
with AVG from Grisoft. Freezes, with only mouse that can move. Solid Keyboard lock up. Only solution was to reboot. I did a Burn in Test on both HDs, all ok. I did a memtest86 on my RAM, all ok. I removed the AV and it was ok. I put the AV back on and the PC starts to lockup again.
You might have an older version of AVG. AVG runs fine on my two upgraded machines…
“Thank ghod I’m not stuck in your Windoze world, and have upgraded to Linux! Join the 21st century and do the same.”
Thanks i needed a good laugh! Spoken like a true uninformed zealot. <wipes a tear from his eye>
“LOL! Yeah, at the expense of any applications being functional. What a great “upgrade”! Thank ghod I’m not stuck in your Windoze world, and have upgraded to Linux! Join the 21st century and do the same.”
“ANY” applications being functional????
Breaking a few applications out of the tens of thousands available on the Windows platform is far “all”.
I suppose you still believe the world is flat too.
“… so far.
In corporate environments where thousands of machines run WindowsXP, that translates into a support nightmare.”
True enough. That is the reason for testing and preventing people from upgrading themselves. The best way to deploy any service pack is by doing a custom corporate rollout. We are doing one ourselves with the appropriate firewall ports open. That way we do not have to worry about it so it will not be a support nightmare.
I like the way Microsoft say that there could be problems but doesn’t detail exactly what.
On the whole, SP2 hasn’t caused me any problems, but a few annoyances like having to upgrade Nero Burning ROM and Alex Feinman’s ISO Recorder/Burner doesn’t work with it yet. However he’s working on that. Keep up the good work Alex!
pac
Wake up and you’ll see the Penguins everywhere
Dear Sir,
I must regretfully redirect to you reality. Said reality may be found here:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jun04_pie.gif
In case you are not able to dissect a simple pie chart yourself:
Operating Systems Used to Access Google:
WindowsXP: 51%
Windows2000: 17%
Windows98: 16%
Other: 5%
WindowsNT: 3%
Windows ME: 3%
Macintosh: 3%
Windows95: 1%
Linux: 1%
It is clear that Linux-based operating systems are not even able to surpass an 11 year old operating system (Windows 95) that is completely unsupported by any commercial vendor. See the article about the experience that was using Windows 98, and consider how much worse it would be to use Windows 95 now-a-days. Yet people still prefer it over all modern flavors of Linux.
“…how far should backwards compatability go, and at the expense of new features?”
Excellent question, and I’ll bite!
IMO, backward compatibility should only go back so far as it doesn’t require major work-arounds or sloppy hacks that might affect the integrity of the overall product. At some point people are just going to have to move on, or look to a 3rd party emulator of some sort, or the original company needs ot patch or release source for their program such that the community can do with it as they please. An example of this would be very old video games (Think “Tie Fighter”… God I loved that game…), or productivity software.
When I read the list of products that act a little goofy under SP2, I was actually quite impressed by how much compatibilty testing MS had done on their products. I read a blog entry once by one of their head developers that detailed such testing. I wish I could remember the address (it may be one of those listed in a previous reponse on this thread), it was quite a good read.
Any other thoughts?
Dear Sir,
I must regretfully redirect to you reality. Said reality may be found here:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jun04_pie.gif
——-
unfortunately its not a reliable stastics
1) browser ids are usually changed for IE compatibility
2) not everyone using Linux needs to access google or have access to it. example) the whole of china has blocked google
3) linux as a desktop operating system has multiple vendors and is freely downloadable and hence shipment or any other conventional stats dont count
4) windows 95 is there due to legacy not because its superior
5) linux vendors didnt invest as much in the desktop as they did for the server till recently
6) dont fall for HYPE
When I read the list of products that act a little goofy under SP2, I was actually quite impressed by how much compatibilty testing MS had done on their products.
—-
not enough by user experiences. they should have waited and pushed this into their next version instead of a service pack. windows has been painfully maintaining binary compatibility for a long time and this is a bad way to break it for major apps
Thanks i needed a good laugh! Spoken like a true uninformed zealot. <wipes a tear from his eye>
—-
just like you a windows zealot
“Breaking a few applications out of the tens of thousands available on the Windows platform is far “all”.
I suppose you still believe the world is flat too.
”
breaking a few?. a lot of apps got broken for a mere service pack
To the gentleman whose thin grasp of reality seems to define OS acceptance by google searches, I suggest you pay attention to the market. Linux is approaching the tipping point. It is not large, although it is used by millions, and it will be growing much larger over the coming few years.
Now, to get back on topic. Is there any chance that SP2 has fixed the significant problems of pervasive spyware and digital restrictions management built into XP? Or did SP2 remove activations? I expect not, but I should know. As it is, I have steered people away from XP, because an OS is a completely inappropriate place for activation?
unfortunately its not a reliable stastics
A hell of a lot more reliable than anything I’ve seen anyone else come up with. All you can scrap together are *reasons* why it might not be totally accurate. Show us some real data and it’ll go a lot farther.
1) browser ids are usually changed for IE compatibility
Yeah I’m sure 50% of the world is running firefox on Linux cross dressed a IE.
2) not everyone using Linux needs to access google or have access to it. example) the whole of china has blocked google
Of course not, why would Linux users want to use the most popular search engine in the world??
China has issues in general, and they go a lot further than running linux.
3) linux as a desktop operating system has multiple vendors and is freely downloadable and hence shipment or any other conventional stats dont count
Nice way to weasel out of the reality that its a low penetration on the desktop.
4) windows 95 is there due to legacy not because its superior
Yeah probably, but its still interesting that roughly the same amount of people hit google with Win95 as do linux.
5) linux vendors didnt invest as much in the desktop as they did for the server till recently
So that would basically back up the stats right ? That its not used as widely on the desktop ?
6) dont fall for HYPE
I’m not, thats why I dumped mandrake off my desktop and use debian as a server OS, which is what its good for.
a lot of apps got broken for a mere service pack
Right, so you would prefer for MS to charge money for a new OS release to add this functionality? I bet you would, so that your beloved linux will possibly (though not likely) gain marketshare.
Advocating linux is fine, and it’s a good OS for certain tasks and constantly improving for the tasks it is not yet good at, but it is childish and useless to demand for microsoft to make Windows worse just so linux can compete with it.
Just update your apps. You will see that nearly all work with XP SP2 without a itch. (Just have to update Nero and done!)
To all those Linux zelot : why do I want to go the Linux way? I need Painter and Photoshop to work… not the Gimp. And why do you want me to change a thing that work fine??? Just to be cool??? I don’t ask you to change your barrel of linux for a barrel of xp… So stop it
They should have done this before releasing XP, you cant do shit like this at a sub release point. I guess they did it because it *had* to be done and the next version of windows wont be released for a while.. But breaking application compatibility at a sub release, is generally not a brilliant idea.. No matter how much time was given to vendors, how many of them do you think actually got SP2 ? how the hell where they gonna know if the service pack was gonna break it. This reminds me of NT4 and the disastrously pathetic attempts at service packs.
Lets also not forget that it breaks some of Microsoft’s own applications so the comment about sloppy coding is kind of funny. I’m not saying application developers are brilliant, but many of them have to use so called “bugs” to get around other bugs within the OS.
Basically Microsoft can do this and get away with it, as they have such a dominant share of the market place.
“No matter how much time was given to vendors, how many of them do you think actually got SP2”
Umm, hopefully all of them that wanted to test their software against it to mitigate breaking changes? MS published slews of documentation aimed at ISV’s well before releasing the RTM. They had plenty of time. If they didn’t RTFM, it’s partially their own fault. And if it’s not fixed now, it will be shortly.
“I’m not saying application developers are brilliant, but many of them have to use so called “bugs” to get around other bugs within the OS.”
You really need to read the two links provided in earlier comments.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/archive/2003/10/15/55296.aspx
If anything, it’s MS who bends over backwards and codes around 3rd party software. These guys are both legends in the MS world (especially Raymond Chen…he’s been on the Windows dev team at MS for as long as anyone can remember), so I tend to believe what they say.
In the end, (and if SP2 lives up to it’s potential), I will take the security fixes over maintaining backwards compatibility any day of the week.
No matter what people like to complain. This has been the way of Windows forever, this is just the first time they have done it as a service pack. What about the 2 versions of Windows 95? There was the retail version, supporting only FAT16, then there was the OEM version with some other tweaks and supported FAT 32. Windows 98 had the regular version, and then they released a version with added functionality and bug fixes, called Windows 98 SE. The only real difference here is we are getting it as a service pack, for free. This way everyone can enjoy the added functionality and bug fixes without having to go and buy the new product as most did with Windows 98 SE.
All I can say is, I installed SP2 on a perfect system running Norton and I had two crashes and massive error messages, plus the system was slow.
I removed and all is well. I think SP2 is a cure that no one wants to take.
I think all the people who post “it works for me” are Microsoft plants to keep others from defecting.
SP2 is junk.
So many people are in a big panic… the only issues I ever saw were NT4 SP1 and if you had a particular brand NIC w/NT4 SP6 vs “6a”.
As far as XPSP2, either the vendor will release an update or you just have to add a program exlusion in the firewall rule (i.e. ActiveSyc, AIM, some virus-updaters etc.)
Most of the “breaks” they speak of are using the “default” – you have to do some tweaking… (a lot easier to tweak than Norton’s Firewall).
I strongly agree that its better to fix it than leave it linger in “backwards” mode – which is MS’s biggest fault (i.e. LM/NTLM vs Kerberos…)
“I think all the people who post “it works for me” are Microsoft plants to keep others from defecting.”
Nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. The sky is not falling, it’s not trashing systems in huge numbers, and I think you should slow up on the crack.
I think the biggest shock for me isn’t necessarily the idea of programmes not working, but specifically the fact that Microsoft Office is affected. Then again, I see they’ve already issued service packs for Office 2003, will they be willing to issue service packs for their older versions? I know Office 97 support was dropped a while back, however, is Office XP and Office 2000 still going to receive an update so one can use it with Windows XP SP2?
Lord knows, the last thing I want to see is people not installing SP2 because their applications are screwed – having dealt with spam-a-rama due to Windows XP bugs – from the ISP end – lord knows I don’t want to see another cycle of spam-o-rama worms being released.
I notice that many of the applications listed are Cross-platform apps, designed for code portability between Windows and Apple platforms. And no, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if trying to implement things in a way thats easily portable encourages non-compliance with the API in favour of compatibility hacks.
Not entirely correct, the fact is, to maximise portability, just don’t rely so heavily on the services offered by the operating system itself. Write in pure C/C++, keep the use of win32 API to the minimum or just enough that Mainsoft supports, and simply work from there.
I haven’t tried SP2 because it isn’t available in dutch yet.
But why are you blaming SP2 when running the most suckying
collection of garbage called norton?
I haven’t tried SP2 because it isn’t available in dutch yet.
But why are you blaming SP2 when running the most suckying
collection of garbage called norton?
I second that, hence the reason every customer I help, I push Kaspersky Anti-Virus, does the job minus the bloat and crapware that comes with McAfee and Nortons.
“badly behaved/buggy apps” – are you suggesting that ALL those apps listed are badly behaved/buggy? I suppose companies like IBM, Adobe, EA, HP, etc… should be warned about the deprecated APIs and practices their programmers use. Shame on them!
More likely they still have cruft left over in them from the previous umpteen versions of the product.
I doubt you’d find _anyone_ at Adobe who knew every nook and cranny of Photoshop, for example. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if the source code for some parts of programs like that hasn’t been sighted for years and they’re coding against binary libraries dating from the early 90s.
Indeed MS is the example of a company that releases very reliable products. Every other sw manufacturer should follow their example! (not!)
What developer offers software at substantially greater levels of reliability that does as much and has to context with similar constraints ?
Thankfully I’m using OS X and amn’t worried about this, however it is an interesting topic for debate – how far should backwards compatability go, and at the expense of new features?
Until the proportion of customers demanding backwards compatibility is less than the proportion of customers demanding new features (or other things that negatively impact on legacy support).
The same kind of problems come up with Longhorn and OS X versus OS 9 (where they took the smart road of emulating the old system inside the new).
Apple had the distinct advantage of modern machines powerful enough to run a complete emulation environment usably. Back when Microsoft were building the compatibility layer for NT, a 33Mhz 386 was fast and having more than 2Mb of RAM was extravagant. That’s the whole reason Windows 9x exists – because consumer hardware at the time wasn’t beefy enough to run NT *and* emulate a full DOS/Win16 environment.
Apple also has the advantage of a total monopoly and (usually) a walking ego for a CEO, so they’re not scared to say things like “right, that’s it, game over for 68k/ADB/SCSI/floppy disks/MacOS Classic/whatever” without worrying too much about their customers going elsewhere. This is yet another reason why Apple isn’t too popular in the corporate world – their track record for legacy support ain’t real flash.
When I read the list of products that act a little goofy under SP2, I was actually quite impressed by how much compatibilty testing MS had done on their products. I read a blog entry once by one of their head developers that detailed such testing. I wish I could remember the address (it may be one of those listed in a previous reponse on this thread), it was quite a good read.
This is an excellent point that bears repeating. Microsoft really do incredible amounts of compatibility testing and make a lot of sacrifices for backwards compatibility, which is why the paranoid claims of them deliberately breaking things are always so laughable.
yes, it is there, the sp2. some are happy because they finally get a security update. others moan. sure, there was a price to pay for this “update”, but to be honest, breaking that lot of apps is a nightmare for every administrator and it will leave most home users helpless. it would have been nice if microsoft would have worked tighter with other sofware-producers like adobe in order to find a solution before a computer system gets the sp2 and then breaks.
talking about downward compatibility: this was always talked about loudly, but didn`t function the way it should. and it seems as it will never be a satisfying thing in windows, becaue nobody can recompile the apps (yeah, the typical source code that is locked). and how will that service pack affect the win-xp-lite edition? is it worthor possible adding it to these systems? ms didn`t say a thing about that. and, who is willing to download the sp2 with a dial up modem? *lol*
i do have both win and a linux box, and i never had this much trouble administering my linux box as i had with my win box. (never had to download a security-fix that was bigger than 4.8 MB)
Micro$haft is delaying the automatic update of XP Pro for a few days, to give time to IT support people around the world to implement the patch that blocks SP2.
Thank you Micro$haft, thank you, thank you, thank you…
See, they really listen to their cu$tomers!
argh, what is with you idiots and crap like M$, Micro$haft, Cu$tomer$? It is so imature its not funny. You rarely see windows users going around boards typing ‘Linsux’. Get the hell over your biasedness and stop acting like 4 year olds.
(btw, I use BeOS as my primary OS. so, no, I’m not a windows junky
)
It’s “cu$tomers”, not “cu$tomer$”.
I hate you
I may be “biasened” but you are beosened…
And M$ Windog$ junkies are bia$ed, obviou$ly.
Right, so you would prefer for MS to charge money for a new OS release to add this functionality? I bet you would, so that your beloved linux will possibly (though not likely) gain marketshare.
—
ya sure. let me release a OS like windows ME. Your beloved google share doesnt even list it
“I need Painter and Photoshop to work… not the Gimp. And why do you want me to change a thing that work fine??? Just to be cool???”
yep. buy crossover office and everything works in linux just fine.
” Of course not, why would Linux users want to use the most popular search engine in the world?? ”
because they get blocked or dont have net access or whatever’
”
A hell of a lot more reliable than anything I’ve seen anyone else come up with. All you can scrap together are *reasons* why it might not be totally accurate. Show us some real data and it’ll go a lot farther.”
dont show inaccurate stuff. there is no real data.
1) browser ids are usually changed for IE compatibility
Yeah I’m sure 50% of the world is running firefox on Linux cross dressed a IE.
—-
a significant percentage like default opera users
2) not everyone using Linux needs to access google or have access to it. example) the whole of china has blocked google
Of course not, why would Linux users want to use the most popular search engine in the world??
—-
because they dont have net access
3) linux as a desktop operating system has multiple vendors and is freely downloadable and hence shipment or any other conventional stats dont count
Nice way to weasel out of the reality that its a low penetration on the desktop.
—-
no. just that there is no real data anywhere
4) windows 95 is there due to legacy not because its superior
Yeah probably, but its still interesting that roughly the same amount of people hit google with Win95 as do linux.
—
No. legacy isnt interesting at all
5) linux vendors didnt invest as much in the desktop as they did for the server till recently
So that would basically back up the stats right ? That its not used as widely on the desktop ? ”
—-
Yes. its just no one considers it a big thing except people who read osnews articles and think linux desktop arrived in 2000 or something when its just about taking off. however popularity doesnt mean superiority and linux desktop share isnt determined by google stats. it sure isnt 1%.
How in the world does “linux” manage to crawl it’s way into a thread about a Windows Service Pack?
Will MS finally get themselves off the front page, thus diluting the security arguements for an OS switch?
Apparently there is a minor state of panic and some well founded speculation MS may have derailed a surge towards other OS’s. Some of the posts here nearly confirm it.
Hey Folks,
All the arguing about what OS is better is really kinda stupid. It’s like saying that EVERYONE likes coffee instead of tea; cats instead of dogs; Chevys instead of Fords, some like Coke and some lilke Pepsi… etc etc etc…
Let’s all grow up here. MS is the world leader in OS’s because they have the money to buy out the little guys, and they have used thier power and money to force the marketplace to use the OS they designed. Remember Netscape? Best browser/email program one could find, but MS forced everyone who uses Winders to use an inferior product like IE by making it PART OF THE OS, and forcing webpage designer to make the webapges they made only work in IE. This is the reality of the huge lead that MS has in the OS market. IT IS WRONG, IT IS EVIL…
It is a good thing that some people use other OS’s such as Linux, OS X, Unix and the likes. It makes MS realize they are NOT the only game in town, even though they want to be the only game in town. Trust me, if we lose all the alt OS’s, then WE ALL SUFFER!!! Monopoly is not just a board game, it is a truth, and that truth sucks!
People are different. They like different things. God made us this way for a reason. But companies like MS want us all to march in the same line and use the same stuff, even if it is inferior. The US used to be a place where a product that was “Made In America” meant something. Now all we care about is doing our 40, getting a case of beer and watching the game all day Sunday. We are in deep trouble, my friends.
One OS is NOT good enough.
When it comes to standards, it’s better when they are unified (e.g. metric system for measurements).
The problem is that Winblow$ is expensive, closed and proprietary… and insecure, and ugly, and buggy… and inefficient, bloated and – oh well, whatever…
As somebody else wrote, with a wonderful sense of raccourci: “SP2 sucks”.
Let’s all grow up here.
Ah, I see the irony is strong in you. Someone who calls Windows, “Winders”, asking everyone else to “grow up”.
MS is the world leader in OS’s because they have the money to buy out the little guys, and they have used thier power and money to force the marketplace to use the OS they designed.
No, the market *chose* to use their OS. Overwhelmingly, I might add. You can’t “force” a free market to do anything without getting the government to intervene.
Remember Netscape? Best browser/email program one could find, but MS forced everyone who uses Winders to use an inferior product like IE by making it PART OF THE OS, and forcing webpage designer to make the webapges they made only work in IE.
You need to check a dictionary on this word, “force”. It does not mean what you think it means.
Now, I do remember Netscape – and obviously far better than you do as well. Netscape had a good product up until 3.x. Then 4.x sucked and they never recovered.
Joel from http://www.joelonsoftware.com has an excellent article explaining why Netscape dropped the ball so badly.
Microsoft had a awful product until 3.x, an adequate product at 3.x and a good product from 4.x onwards.
Unsurprisingly, it was about the time that Netscape released their awful product (4.x) and Microsoft released their good product (4.x) that IE usage exploded (building off a solid base from their adequate product (3.x)). This all happened a good 6 – 10 months before the release of Windows 98 and Microsoft “making it PART OF THE OS”, when IE4 was only available via download, magazine cover, mailed CD, etc.
An economist might refer to this as “the free market in action”.
Since you’ve evidently only entered the computing world in the last few years, you probably didn’t actually live through the things you’re talking about. However, rest assured that “back in the day” IE *was* the better browser, by leaps and bounds.
Incidentally, you might want to aim a bit of that angst about “IE only webpages” at Netscape, as well, since they not only started the trend, but were basing their business model on non-standard, proprietry browser extensions that were only supported by Netscape web servers. Microsoft just grabbed the ball and ran with it.
It is a good thing that some people use other OS’s such as Linux, OS X, Unix and the likes. It makes MS realize they are NOT the only game in town, even though they want to be the only game in town.
Microsoft are well aware they’re not the only game in town. Indeed, the reason they still play the game so ruthlessly even when they own 95%+ of the market is *because* they know there are alternatives out there. That’s the thing about Microsoft corporate culture – they always think they’re the underdog.
One OS is NOT good enough.
Can’t argue with that, but please try and improve your arguments and your knowledge of the industry – both historical and contemporary – as they are very weak.
“Since you’ve evidently only entered the computing world in the last few years, you probably didn’t actually live through the things you’re talking about. However, rest assured that “back in the day” IE *was* the better browser, by leaps and bounds. ”
He may not have, but I certainly did. IE was not a better browser despite your insistence to the contrary. IE 3.0 was pathetic, to the point where we were forced to download Netscape to do something as simple as upload files to a yahoo website. IE 4.0 was mediocre, and we can see 6.0 isn’t much better…a backdoor for malware and little more. Also it’s interesting that a fork of Netcape (Mozilla) could be better than IE in no time at all. The only real advantage IE has ever had was its inclusion with Windows and the fact that most websites are built around it in yet another example of the computer industry kissing up to MS.
Frankly, I could care less what Joel thinks either. Not only was I on the internet during this time and used both browsers, but I’ve also read up on the Browser Wars, and anybody who has could tell you about the strong arm tactics MS used to keep Netscape from getting added to machines by OEMs and especially with AOL that gave them an icon on the Windows desktop in exchange for them pushing Explorer rather that Netscape. Stop pretending like you’re offering facts when it’s only your arrogant opinions we are continually subjected to. I think it’s about time YOU do some research on the Browser Wars. You are the one who doesn’t seem to have the facts straight. There’s a reason why Microsoft is constantly charged with Anti-trust violations and it’s not because people are “picking on” Bill.
We the consumers and the industry allowed it to happen, allowed MS to have the marketshare and control over the industry that it does today. In that sense, I supposed we’ve all gotten what we deserved.
IE 3.0 was pathetic, to the point where we were forced to download Netscape to do something as simple as upload files to a yahoo website.
You are, I think, remembering IE 2.x and not 3.x. 2.x was very primitive and used for little else apart from downloading Netscape. 3.x was pretty much on par feature-wise with Netscape and in reviews generally considered to be an equal, but not as popular due to the significant installed base of Navigator users.
Even reviewers that preferred Navigator conceded that IE3 was roughly equal.
I can’t speak for the particular issue you’re talking about since I have no first hand knowledge, but it was early days in the browser wars and there were significant features each browser lacked (eg: IE supported CSS, Navigator didn’t).
IE 4.0 was mediocre, and we can see 6.0 isn’t much better…a backdoor for malware and little more.
It would appear most of the computing press (and the world) disagrees with you. Of course, with a loaded statement like that it’s pretty easy to see where you stand.
IE4 was considered by most reviewers to be superior to Navigator. It was faster, less buggy and more featureful. It certainly grew IE marketshare massively *before* it was integrated into Windows 98, so tangible evidence would suggest consumers agreed.
In fact, the only people I’ve ever met who don’t agree IE4 wasn’t *at least* on par with its Navigator counterpart were anti-Microsoft zealots like yourself who criticise everything Microsoft does, regardless.
A quick Google for “internet history browser wars” turns up pages all saying basically the same thing – IE3 was the contender, IE4 was the champ and Netscape dropped the ball.
This one is a entertaining quickie:
http://www.quirksmode.org/browsers/history.html
Also it’s interesting that a fork of Netcape (Mozilla) could be better than IE in no time at all.
Maybe if you consider several years to be “no time at all”. Mozilla has only really become a viable alternative for the masses in about the last 12 months.
IE4 was released in 1998. Mozilla 1.0 (still not usable at the time as a full time replacement IMHO) was released in 2002.
Frankly, I could care less what Joel thinks either.
Argh. Couldn’t. You couldn’t care less what Joel thinks.
Sorry, but that one annoys me almost as much as people who use “then” when they mean “than” or leave the “of” out of phrases like “couple of days ago”.
I’m not surprised you don’t care what he thinks, either, given he shows calm, rational reasoning as to why something bad happened that wasn’t Microsoft’s fault.
Not only was I on the internet during this time and used both browsers, but I’ve also read up on the Browser Wars, and anybody who has could tell you about the strong arm tactics MS used to keep Netscape from getting added to machines by OEMs and especially with AOL that gave them an icon on the Windows desktop in exchange for them pushing Explorer rather that Netscape.
Nothing stopped Navigator being installed into machines. OEMs just weren’t allowed to modify the default desktop.
I agree it’s not particularly kosher, but it’s a long way from not allowing it to be installed at all.
It also doesn’t change the simple facts that the major uptake in IE usage a) was cauased by IE4, b) happened before IE4 was integrated into Windows 98 and c) was considered perfectly fair by most people who used both browsers.
Microsoft certainly played hard, but they *also* made a better web browser in the process. The biggest benfactors: end users.
Stop pretending like you’re offering facts when it’s only your arrogant opinions we are continually subjected to. I think it’s about time YOU do some research on the Browser Wars. You are the one who doesn’t seem to have the facts straight.
Feel free to list anything I’ve presented as a fact that isn’t, or isn’t at least repeating an opinion held by a majority of people.
There’s a reason why Microsoft is constantly charged with Anti-trust violations and it’s not because people are “picking on” Bill.
There’s a whole bunch of reasons. Some of them are reasonable. Some of them are stupid. Many of the ones people believe are just flat out wrong.
you guys are a “bit” off-topic aren`t you? visit each other and continue your flame wars at home with tea and cookies, but these comments are annoying and do not add any value to discussions.
yeah, battle on, which browser is best. which os is best. whose pants are best. it is all a matter of personal choice and preferences. so, pleeeeease stop that nonsense.