perthie wrote:
> I think its just written ambiguously because the author wasnt paying
> attention and it slipped passed the proofreaders (Who didnt understand
> what he was trying to say) then past the editors (who naturally also had
> no clue what he was talking about) then finally to print where the
> entire world can share in the confusion. ill probably ignore this issue
> until about january when more articles have been written. hopefully
> those will be more clear.
My first thought is that the phrasing is amazingly similar between all
articles on the subject, and all of them seem to indicate that Microsoft
will be forcing SP2 on people even if they aren't using Automatic
Update. Chances are good, however, that at this point you'd at least
have to use Windows Update to get it. They probably haven't figured out
a way to make it work without alerting too many people to their perfidy
without at least WU running.
Of course, your options with an Internet-connected XP machine then become:
1. get SP2
2. run a machine that never gets a security patch
3. format and install something else
I choose 3. I choose 3 if for no other reason than the fact that I
think it's not only more likely that Microsoft would be doing what we
fear than not, but also that Microsoft will do it as soon as they can
get away with it if they're not already. I'm voting with my checkbook,
as well as protecting myself from the disingenuous and generally
unethical business practices of Microsoft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:36:36 EDT