Why SP2 deserved every shred of the scrutiny
Since its arrival, SP2 has been under the equivalent of an electron microscope. It doesn't seem to matter whether a post-SP2 installation problem (notice that I didn't say "SP2-caused?") is a showstopper or a pixel out of place. Every problem, no matter how big or small, is apparently worthy of its own headline. Forums such as the comments on ZDNet's blogs and the TalkBacks on ZDNet's news stories have attracted armchair SP2 critics, many with their own SP2 horror stories, as well as Microsoft supporters who've not only had success with SP2, but who've risen to the company's defense and characterized the negative attention as unfair, overblown, sour-grapes, and even vendettas.
In a posting that castigated me, ZDNet, and users who have voiced dissatisfaction with SP2, one ZDNet reader identifying himself as Peter wrote, "OK, David Berlind and friends, just let it go. Your anti-MS crusade is really getting tired now. You and your type must hate being into computers, as you seem to hate Microsoft so much that you can't go one day without spouting some anti-Microsoft drivel. Your last few anti-MS SP2 FUD articles brought this clearly to the front." Peter wasn't alone in this sentiment. Referring to an opinion piece by Steve Jamison ("Reader rails against 'obscene' costs of MS insecurity"), another reader posted: "I cannot believe ZDNet allows this drivel. This is an obscene post. We look to ZDNet as a beacon of light in IT journalism. Posting this perverse opinion is immoral. Microsoft is the guiding force in security. As Steve Ballmer said, SP2 for Windows XP is wowing customers. My local MCSE user group cannot stop praising the advances SP2 has made in security."
