Is Microsoft at fault

You need to go back and reread the thread as what has been stated here is nothing like that.

Also, the "anecdotal evidence" you claim that ther are never solutions. People have posted their problems, and when a solution exists they usually post that.

You also assume that people with tons of experiance in the IT field that have been experiencing similar problems or strange issues must automatically be at fault...That is poor reasoning.

Most of the people posting in this thread have TONS of IT experience and know what they are doing and know to RTFM (RTFW(eb)?).

SP2 is the issue, not wetware....

Is the fact that now all my Volume Licenses come up as Pirate Copies of Windows XP Pro. Prior to installing SP2 they where considered as legal and even when SP1 was made available I had to change all the product keys over so I could install SP1. That was perfectly OK as MS told everyone what was happening and just how it could break the OS when applied.

But with SP2 they didn't even mention it and did it in the background which allowed SP2 to be installed but then will not comply with MS when you try to download a few items but I suppose eventually will be carried over to the WUS at which time I will again have to ring MS quote the numbers on the center of the CD and then wait a minimum of 10 days to be e-mailed a new product key which will then have to be changed again. All at my cost and at the same time I'm being given the third degree by the MS employees who seem to think that I'm somehow stealing from the company by having the gall to want what I paid for to work properly.

This has not been a problem with the Volume License packs that I've brought from MS with SP1 included but is a very good reason never to consider upgrading until at the very least one SP has been released.

At some point in time I'll have to change the product keys over again and I'll be the one paying for the privilege of using Windows XP and while it is no big deal here as they are under 50 units involved I suppose I'll be doing another product key change on those 2,500 units as well this time again but unfortunately we do not have an Easter Long Weekend coming up so it will be a slow process.

It is things like this that I find objectionable with MS and their business practices I paid for the Volume License and it is working out far more expensive than going with all OEM and no problems.

Just why is it so?

There is no one but MS to blame for this one as it can not be put down to a Hardware Fault the lack of testing of SP2 before installing a people problem of someone being lazy it is plain and simple nothing but a Software problem that MS has engineered into their product and what makes it worse in this case is that they already have a record of me needing a new product key and they have left it to me to again request a new product key again. I know how I was treated last time and it really is something that I'm not looking forward to going through again.

Col ]:)

Ok! Everybody said their peace so let start again. Yes, I read the posting and the original question is "Why do people prefer not to install the SP2 of XP and rather keep their machines vulnerable? And then again Is this MS fault??
I guess the answer is basically because many of us had been very diligent in telling the world in this and many other forums our horror stories when we tried to do the upgrade but had a problem.
I have no love for any company. I use both Windows and Linux (Red Hat) and the decision on what tool to use is based on what the end result has to be.
I found this gem on another forum "When I go to the Windows Update site, SP2 is not listed as an available update. I downloaded SP2 from Microsoft and installed it. When I rebooted my computer, it froze with the Windows XP logo." This is a post from a user listed as an IT Professional. Are we really going to blame MS for that?
We as IT Professionals are the only ones that could and should do something to keep our systems secure and updated.
It wasn't me who said "Your anecdotal evidence doesn't in any way invalidate anyone else's anecdotal evidence". But I agree; the fact that some of us had issues, whatever the reason was, installing the SP2 doesn't in any way diminished the fact that others had no issues and are supporting updated systems

But I refuse to even consider doing this without first testing the offerings. I would prefer to have my anti intrusion systems working a little harder than not having the computers working at all. :)

Look at this months offerings 10 Patches from MS thankfully all are not for the main products that I use but there will still be a load of testing before deploying these.

I've had my fingers burnt previously by something as simple as a Java plug in trashing an entire OS so I'll never blindly accept MS promise that it's the best that can produce at short notice, granted they have got a bit better now as they don't seem to be recalling patches lately and releasing a new one to fix what the old broke but from my experience when the Patches broke things I had the systems fixed and left un patched by the offending patch long before the fix became available.

Col ]:)