Jimmy 2004With the company putting the finish touches to no less than three major service packs at the moment, Microsoft has released a tool which will allow users to prevent them from being automatically downloaded. The Windows Service Pack Blocker Toolkit lets users block XP SP3 and Vista SP1 for up to one year, and Server 2003 SP2 until March next year. There are three versions - an executable, a script and a group policy template - so take your pick. This is recommended for any users worried about potential security and stability issues that may result from installing the service packs.

Source: PC World

interesting heres to hoping that I won't need this though when Vista SP1 comes out next year:rockout::rockout:

Edit: yay I got the first post lol

Jimmy 2004This is recommended for any users worried about potential security and stability issues that may result from installing the service packs.

Its a Service Pack, its purpose is to address "potential security and stability issues".. :laugh:
Maybe we need a Service Pack for the Service Pack :rolleyes:

Can't you just shut off automatic updates?
Why is a new tool needed?

so ms isn't forcing us to upgrade?!?! wow, did ms get a new head of marketing or something?

X-TeNDeRIts a Service Pack, its purpose is to address "potential security and stability issues".. :laugh:

You'd hope so, but that doesn't mean more get created by accident... also, some unusual applications may be adversely affected and require patches with new service packs, so some people prefer to wait and be sure.

KreijCan't you just shut off automatic updates?

Yes, but this way you can keep automatic updates enabled to get any other security patches.

It's amazing what a company like MS can release these days.

A SP blocking toolkit :roll:

Awesome... :rolleyes:

R.

This is quite sensible really... alot of companies require solid stability without compromise, and that means no updates till they are properly vetted for their company needs.

Tis a good thing, so good going. Anyways, they are protecting their asses, coz if a company automatically got its update and it fuxored their inhouse software they'd not be best pleased

that should be finishing touches.

Jimmy 2004Yes, but this way you can keep automatic updates enabled to get any other security patches.

People trust the security patches but not the security patches in the SP?

I know what you mean, it just seams a little ironic to me. :laugh:

Well I can't see how vista could get any worse so i'm just gonna bite the bullet and dl sp1 when its out. :rockout:

Gotta love the fact that they don't trust THEIR OWN service pack

I know it can never be 100% safe and secure, but you have to love the irony

Jimmy 2004You'd hope so, but that doesn't mean more get created by accident... also, some unusual applications may be adversely affected and require patches with new service packs, so some people prefer to wait and be sure.

Yes, but this way you can keep automatic updates enabled to get any other security patches.

mandeloreThis is quite sensible really... alot of companies require solid stability without compromise, and that means no updates till they are properly vetted for their company needs.

They are protecting their asses, coz if a company automatically got its update and it fuxored their inhouse software they'd not be best pleased

So I guess this is just so it dont Fugger up some private/"unusual" software, us regular users I dont think will be needing this.

Don't we have to pay for the new service packs when they come out :p?

PinchyDon't we have to pay for the new service packs when they come out :p?

Pirate the service packs. :laugh:

Just kidding.

PinchyDon't we have to pay for the new service packs when they come out :p?

Not for existing Vista users I don't think so. Am I wrong?

effmasterNot for existing Vista users I don't think so. Am I wrong?

Im not sure...

I forget how it was back with XP because I just let my old comp tech do the building :D.

IMO the real truth behind this is that M$ was trying to create problems for xp users (screw it up and slow it down) through automatic updates so they would go out and buy vista, the problem is they messed it up too much but still want to put it out there so the solution was that they offer a blocking tool which i bet will end up causing needed updates from being downloaded.

the question is why??? if the new update is flawed then dont release it till its fixed or do it as a manual download.
i've been waiting for SP3 for years so waiting a few more months is no problem.

keakarIMO the real truth behind this is that M$ was trying to create problems for xp users (screw it up and slow it down) through automatic updates so they would go out and buy vista, the problem is they messed it up too much but still want to put it out there so the solution was that they offer a blocking tool which i bet will end up causing needed updates from being downloaded.

the question is why??? if the new update is flawed then dont release it till its fixed or do it as a manual download.
i've been waiting for SP3 for years so waiting a few more months is no problem.

as i stated above, the reason will be because it takes alot more time for diff companies to test the compatability and stability of updates/service packs on their own software, how it will effect the business's day to day running etc..

alot of profit rides on the stability of their IT infrastructure, so any compramises to this will adversly affect their company. This blocking software gives them the time they need to make sure that nothing is gonna get bricked, no random crashes, frustrated customers, angry staff, lost profits. Makes sense really

as i stated above, the reason will be because it takes alot more time for diff companies to test the compatability and stability of updates/service packs on their own software, how it will effect the business's day to day running etc..

alot of profit rides on the stability of their IT infrastructure, so any compramises to this will adversly affect their company. This blocking software gives them the time they need to make sure that nothing is gonna get bricked, no random crashes, frustrated customers, angry staff, lost profits. Makes sense really

Valid point.

. . . I'm just surprised MS has actually thought of this tool before SP3 release.


We all know they don't always have their best epiphanies before they release a product/update/service.

mandeloreas i stated above, the reason will be because it takes alot more time for diff companies to test the compatability and stability of updates/service packs on their own software, how it will effect the business's day to day running etc..

alot of profit rides on the stability of their IT infrastructure, so any compramises to this will adversly affect their company. This blocking software gives them the time they need to make sure that nothing is gonna get bricked, no random crashes, frustrated customers, angry staff, lost profits. Makes sense really

a lot of profit also rides on the fact that they have to make sure everyone buys vista and leaves xp. they did this with win98 when xp came out and are following the same proven buisness strategy to slowly and hopefully not noticably do small updates that have the net result of slowing the older operating system down enough so that it convinces people to switch to the newer "faster" system.

i do not disagree with anything you said, however it has nothing to do with the point i was making about the larger overall goals M$ has and how that effects the way they look at updates being released for xp users.

if the new long overdue SP3 update has serious problems then dont "automatically" screw up my system because i wasnt paying attention to the latest M$ news release so that i could run to disable my autoupdate feature.

does it not make more sense to first release it as a manual download only so i can decide if i want to risk using it and later on after the bugs are all worked out make it into an automatic update? that is how they released IE7

as i said before, i've been waiting for SP3 for years so waiting a few more months is no problem.