Sign up now! · Forgot password?
RSS/Atom feed identi.ca Twitter

Windows XP - Service Pack?

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

13 of 14 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Windows XP - Service Pack? jack white 19 Jan 05:03
Windows XP - Service Pack? jack white 28 Jan 17:51
Windows XP - Service Pack? Jernej Simončič 29 Jan 00:03
Windows XP - Service Pack? jack white 30 Jan 18:54
  Windows XP - Service Pack? Chris Mohler 30 Jan 19:11
   Windows XP - Service Pack? Jay Smith 30 Jan 19:57
    Windows XP - Service Pack? jc 30 Jan 22:17
     Windows XP - Service Pack? Jay Smith 30 Jan 22:24
mailman.3.1296331204.15202.... 30 Jan 22:17
Windows XP - Service Pack? Jernej Simončič 31 Jan 09:30
  Windows XP - Service Pack? Gene Heskett 31 Jan 17:39
Windows XP - Service Pack? Jernej Simončič 31 Jan 18:10
  Windows XP - Service Pack? Gene Heskett 31 Jan 19:16
   Windows XP - Service Pack? Frank Gore 31 Jan 19:23
jack white
2011-01-19 05:03:25 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

Except that 2.6.6 installs without SP2, but 2.6.11 won't install without it.

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:20:17 +0100 From: Jernej Simon?i?
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack? To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:21:11 +0000, jack white wrote:

I noticed the 2.6.11 says SP2 is required for Windows XP. I know 2.6.6 works fine without a Service Pack. Does 2.6.11 really require SP2? If so, is 2.6.7 the first version to require it?

I've had the SP2 requirement in the installer for a long time (since GIMP 2.6.2 according to my changelog). GIMP would probably work on XP without any service packs, however I was getting too many weird error reports (which weren't reproducible with SP2 and SP3) that I decided to not bother with anything older (Microsoft also dropped support for XP without SP2 a while ago, and the service packs are a free upgrade, so I see no reason to waste my time with unsupported Windows versions).

-- < Jernej Simon?i? ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >

jack white
2011-01-28 17:51:04 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

Is there a way to trick 2.6.11 into installing on XP with no SP's installed?

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:03:25 +0000 From: jack white
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack? To:

Except that 2.6.6 installs without SP2, but 2.6.11 won't install without it.

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:20:17 +0100 From: Jernej Simon?i?
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack? To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:21:11 +0000, jack white wrote:

I noticed the 2.6.11 says SP2 is required for Windows XP. I know 2.6.6 works fine without a Service Pack. Does 2.6.11 really require SP2? If so, is 2.6.7 the first version to require it?

I've had the SP2 requirement in the installer for a long time (since GIMP 2.6.2 according to my changelog). GIMP would probably work on XP without any service packs, however I was getting too many weird error reports (which weren't reproducible with SP2 and SP3) that I decided to not bother with anything older (Microsoft also dropped support for XP without SP2 a while ago, and the service packs are a free upgrade, so I see no reason to waste my time with unsupported Windows versions).

Jernej Simončič
2011-01-29 00:03:10 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:51:04 +0000, jack white wrote:

Is there a way to trick 2.6.11 into installing on XP with no SP's installed?

Install SP2, install GIMP, uninstall SP2.

jack white
2011-01-30 18:54:42 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

Thank you, but that's not installing it with no SP's installed though (as the question was).

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:03:10 +0100 From: Jernej Simon?i?
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Windows XP - Service Pack? To: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:51:04 +0000, jack white wrote:

Is there a way to trick 2.6.11 into installing on XP with no SP's installed?

Install SP2, install GIMP, uninstall SP2.

-- < Jernej Simon?i? ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >

*********

Chris Mohler
2011-01-30 19:11:03 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM, jack white wrote:

Thank you, but that's not installing it with no SP's installed though (as the question was).

I'm not sure why you would want to skip the service packs - I use an XP VM for legacy apps and testing, but the first thing I did when setting it up was to install SP3. Why not install SP2 (or SP3)? Just curious.

Anyway - maybe the portable version would work? Just a guess - I have no way of testing it:
http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/gimp_portable

Chris

Jay Smith
2011-01-30 19:57:14 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On 01/30/2011 02:11 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM, jack white wrote:

Thank you, but that's not installing it with no SP's installed though (as the question was).

I'm not sure why you would want to skip the service packs - I use an XP VM for legacy apps and testing, but the first thing I did when setting it up was to install SP3. Why not install SP2 (or SP3)? Just curious.

Anyway - maybe the portable version would work? Just a guess - I have no way of testing it:
http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/gimp_portable

Chris

I am new to this thread...

There is a lot of stuff that must have SP2 to run and I have not heard of any significant problems with SP2.

However, SP2 is the last version before M$ added "phone home". A lot of people don't trust M$. It is not an issue of whether the copy of Windoze is legal or not (which, of course it always should be), but it is an issue that it's none of M$ business what you use the Windoze for.

Jay

jc
2011-01-30 22:17:04 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:57:14 -0500, Jay Smith wrote:

I'm not sure why you would want to skip the service packs - I use an XP VM for legacy apps and testing, but the first thing I did when setting it up was to install SP3. Why not install SP2 (or SP3)? Just
curious.

However, SP2 is the last version before M$ added "phone home". A lot of
people don't trust M$. It is not an issue of whether the copy of Windoze is legal or not (which, of course it always should be), but it
is an issue that it's none of M$ business what you use the Windoze for.

I don't disagree with you about Microsoft's high-handed tactics, but being unpatched puts your system at risk, as well as others when your system is compromised or "botted." There are better alternatives (Linux, Mac) to what you're doing.

Jay Smith
2011-01-30 22:24:37 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On 01/30/2011 05:17 PM, jc wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:57:14 -0500, Jay Smith wrote:

I'm not sure why you would want to skip the service packs - I use an XP VM for legacy apps and testing, but the first thing I did when setting it up was to install SP3. Why not install SP2 (or SP3)? Just curious.

However, SP2 is the last version before M$ added "phone home". A lot of people don't trust M$. It is not an issue of whether the copy of Windoze is legal or not (which, of course it always should be), but it is an issue that it's none of M$ business what you use the Windoze for.

I don't disagree with you about Microsoft's high-handed tactics, but being unpatched puts your system at risk, as well as others when your system is compromised or "botted." There are better alternatives (Linux, Mac) to what you're doing.

I agree completely with JC.

Though giving M$ access is the definition of compromised as far as I am concerned.

We run Linux for 98% of our work.

We only run one XP SP2 for specific applications that are not available in any more satisfactory form. It is behind three levels of firewalls with communication both in and out clamped down to the point that it can be hard to use. It is NEVER, EVER used for browsing or email or anything like that and it is only running when one of the needed applications is being used. Still, it is worrisome.

Jay

Jernej Simončič
2011-01-31 09:30:31 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:24:37 -0500, Jay Smith wrote:

Though giving M$ access is the definition of compromised as far as I am concerned.

What kind of access, and what do you mean by "phone home"? If you're that paranoid about Windows Update, you can always prevent the service from running (and it's easy to shut up the notification centre as well).

Gene Heskett
2011-01-31 17:39:06 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Monday, January 31, 2011 12:19:44 pm Jernej Simončič did opine:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:24:37 -0500, Jay Smith wrote:

Though giving M$ access is the definition of compromised as far as I am concerned.

What kind of access, and what do you mean by "phone home"? If you're that paranoid about Windows Update, you can always prevent the service from running (and it's easy to shut up the notification centre as well).

Oh oh, he's been drinking the koolaid. What we FOSS people are objecting to is the WGA that gets installed with SP2 I believe it was, and this thing does phone home on every reboot to check if its a legally purchased and registered copy, AND that it is running on the same hardware it was originally installed on. Change a hard drive because it went face down in the pool, and you have to buy _another_ copy of windows. And if someone publishes a way to defeat this "feature", they find a DMCA take down notice from M$ the next day.

And windows people wonder why us Linux folks hate windows. We don't hate windows per sei, but we don't trust it either. We aren't pirates, but I have been known to lose my cool when, in trying to rescue a company windows box, some damned worm has renamed a centrally needed windows dll and all I wanted was a clean copy of it. But I was a pirate, despite having all the original paperwork and serial numbers to prove I had a legal copy of NT-3.51, I had to buy another copy to get that file.

Microsoft has well earned the enmity of millions of its users, users who do not understand there are alternatives available.

Jernej Simončič
2011-01-31 18:10:15 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:39:06 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:

Oh oh, he's been drinking the koolaid. What we FOSS people are objecting to is the WGA that gets installed with SP2 I believe it was, and this thing does phone home on every reboot to check if its a legally purchased and registered copy, AND that it is running on the same hardware it was originally installed on.

WGA is a separate update, and you don't need to install it (while it is among the auto-install updates, you can tell Windows to never install it, and even if you forget that, it will not actually install unless you explicitly agree - it displays a license on next boot, and if you choose "Do not agree", and click Next and then Cancel, it won't bother you again).

Change a hard drive because it went face down in the pool, and you have to buy _another_ copy of windows.

Don't spread lies - first, if you have an OEM copy of Windows (that was pre-installed by a major computer manufacturer), it'll never deactivate (as long as you keep the motherboard), because it only checks the license in BIOS. If you have a non-branded OEM copy or a retail version, you'll at worst have to call the activation centre (but this is only needed in rare circumstances - usually Windows will just activate automatically, assuming some time has passed since last activation). While it's not legal to move an OEM copy from one computer to another, you can even do that, since there's no real way to tell you did it (unless let WGA install, and you use Windows on both computers). There's no restrictions

And if someone
publishes a way to defeat this "feature", they find a DMCA take down notice from M$ the next day.

Doing a google search would suggest otherwise.

Gene Heskett
2011-01-31 19:16:19 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Monday, January 31, 2011 01:55:20 pm Jernej Simončič did opine:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:39:06 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:

Oh oh, he's been drinking the koolaid. What we FOSS people are objecting to is the WGA that gets installed with SP2 I believe it was, and this thing does phone home on every reboot to check if its a legally purchased and registered copy, AND that it is running on the same hardware it was originally installed on.

WGA is a separate update, and you don't need to install it (while it is among the auto-install updates, you can tell Windows to never install it, and even if you forget that, it will not actually install unless you explicitly agree - it displays a license on next boot, and if you choose "Do not agree", and click Next and then Cancel, it won't bother you again).

Yup, and some things will never work right again. BTDTBTTS. And that was put in place only after M$ phone lines were tied up for months, from honest people objecting to being screwed.

Change a hard drive because it went face down in the pool, and you have to buy _another_ copy of windows.

Don't spread lies -

I am not lying, and I resent the accusation. That exact scenario I described happened to me. Before the days of cheap long distance, I probably ran the phone bill up $200 arguing with them. Because that machine wasn't exactly a utility machine but specially programmed for a CBS networking email application that actually got its input data from the VITS/Teletext, and its downtime was costing us about that much a day anyway, I relented and bought another copy of NT-3.51. About 3 months later the drive went face down in the pool, and I made CBS image me another drive and send it out, turned out to be much simpler and a weeks faster way to get it going again. At that point neither of us had a quarter to call someone and see if it was legal.

first, if you have an OEM copy of Windows (that was pre-installed by a major computer manufacturer), it'll never deactivate (as long as you keep the motherboard), because it only checks the license in BIOS. If you have a non-branded OEM copy or a retail version, you'll at worst have to call the activation centre (but this is only needed in rare circumstances - usually Windows will just activate automatically, assuming some time has passed since last activation). While it's not legal to move an OEM copy from one computer to another, you can even do that, since there's no real way to tell you did it (unless let WGA install, and you use Windows on both computers). There's no restrictions

I wouldn't know today. The last copy of XP I bought on a laptop 5 years ago, and wiped it when I did my 2nd linux install 4 years ago. There are no other windows machines on the premises.

And if someone
publishes a way to defeat this "feature", they find a DMCA take down notice from M$ the next day.

Doing a google search would suggest otherwise.

Then why are such utilities so hard to find? And I rest my case, I should have just STFU in the first place.

Frank Gore
2011-01-31 19:23:01 UTC (about 3 years ago)

Windows XP - Service Pack?

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:

a rant

Considering Gimp runs on so many systems, it's amazing how rarely these MS vs OSS flamewars occur on this mailing list. But that's all this is, a flamewar that has become completely unrelated to Gimp. Please everyone, keep your replies regarding this private. The whole list has no interest in reading them.

-- Frank Gore
www.ProjectPontiac.com