Besides "security", is there ANY reason to install SP2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Invid-Corg
  • Start date Start date
I

Invid-Corg

I mean, Microsofts half-assed attempts at security are pretty pitiful. 3rd
party software is better than anything they could release. But does the
update increase stability or speed (or decrease?) in XP?
 
I mean, Microsofts half-assed attempts at security are pretty pitiful.
Click to expand...

day to day...yup
3rd party software is better than anything they could release.
Click to expand...

nope...3rd party is not even close.
3rd party doesn't even know exactly what they are hooking
into...winapi's are not all documented let alone available.
(I'll give some allowance to anti-virus people...hard work)
But does the update increase stability
yup

or speed
yup

(or decrease?) in XP?
Click to expand...

nope, unless you have a system about to fall
over anyways. sp2 is not a magic wand to
fix inherent system or program faults.

Although you can find a number of websites
with reviews online...I have put together a few
issues, links, and notes (plus some fixes)
Included are links to block auto/windows update
for a few months (or re-open) if you are worried.
http://ntcanuck.com/net/board/index.php?showtopic=383
 
yup
Click to expand...

From what I've read, SP2 does neither of these. Can you tell us where
you got the information from and exactly how and why SP2 increases speed
and stability?
 
"I don't have to be a veterinarian to know what dog shit is. ****ing
moron."

True, all you have to do is look in the mirror.
By the way, can you spell LOSER (hint, it's not LOOSER).
In my (limited) experience, most ill mannered posters with a bad attitude
can't spell either.
 
And I expect you are an OS expert?
Click to expand...

Many of the self-professed "software experts" have no idea what Microsoft is
up against.

They scream about "security" because they go to warez or porno sites and get
smacked with some sort of malware. They expect MS to fix all vulnerabilities
without breaking any of the thousands of little programs and drivers
currently in use. This reminds me of children, who think mom and dad can fix
the whole world. They need to wake up and realize the world is not simple,
and there is no magic "fix" for everything. They need to realize that all
their screaming is what caused the current state of the Windows OS in the
first place.

Could MS do better? Yes. They're trying, and every release is a little
better.

Can MS fix everything?

Yes, they could create a brand new OS that is practically bulletproof, but
at a huge price nobody is willing to pay. The new OS could not be compatible
with any current hardware or software, and MS would be forced to
micro-manage every new hardware device and software program. But can you
imagine how loudly everyone would scream about MS "heavy-handedness"?
Remember, screaming got Windows where it is today.
 
Yes, they could create a brand new OS that is practically
bulletproof, but at a huge price nobody is willing to pay.
Click to expand...

They could release it as freeware. ;)
 
Invid-Corg said:
I mean, Microsofts half-assed attempts at security are pretty pitiful.
Click to expand...

Microsoft CAN do security as good as Linux but like Linux it'd be
completely noob unfriendly.
 
Many of the self-professed "software experts" have no idea what
Microsoft is up against.
Click to expand...

And the self-professed non-expert Bob does? :P
They scream about "security" because they go to warez or porno sites
and get smacked with some sort of malware.
Click to expand...

Er no. Nowdays ignorance and careless is sufficient to get you "smacked".
No need to go to some warez or porno sites.
They expect MS to fix all
vulnerabilities without breaking any of the thousands of little
programs and drivers currently in use. This reminds me of children,
who think mom and dad can fix the whole world. They need to wake up
and realize the world is not simple, and there is no magic "fix" for
everything. They need to realize that all their screaming is what
caused the current state of the Windows OS in the first place.
Click to expand...

While I agree that there is no silver bullet, your last statement is
interesting. Care to explain what you mean by the "Current state of the
Windows OS" being caused by "screaming" ?
 
Phoenix said:
"I don't have to be a veterinarian to know what dog shit is. ****ing
moron."

True, all you have to do is look in the mirror.
By the way, can you spell LOSER (hint, it's not LOOSER).
In my (limited) experience, most ill mannered posters with a bad attitude
can't spell either.
Click to expand...

Uh, what did I spell wrong?
 
Microsoft CAN do security as good as Linux but like Linux it'd be
completely noob unfriendly.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.

A) Microsoft cannot do security as well as UNIX - never good, never
will as it goes against their basic OS design philosophy.

B) Linux is not unfriendly.

C) Even if Linux WAS unfriendly, it's security features have nothing
to do with it. You have root and you have other users and you have
file permissions just like on Windows 2000 and XP.

Of course, if you're used to Windows 98 where everything was wide
open, ANY security is going to be "unfriendly". If you like that
state of affairs, take a walk down to the "bad neighborhood" in your
town, and wave your wallet around.
 
nope...3rd party is not even close.
3rd party doesn't even know exactly what they are hooking
into...winapi's are not all documented let alone available.
(I'll give some allowance to anti-virus people...hard work)
Click to expand...

Wrong. Analysis of the XP firewall shows it blocks almost nothing
going out (although it does do pretty good at blocking incoming -
although it does NOT stealth EVERY port.). This makes it inferior to
almost any third-party firewall such as Kerio.
yup
Click to expand...

Unless of course you're running one of the fifty programs (including
Microsoft Office) which Microsoft says will "perform differently"
after installing SP2 - without telling anybody exactly what that
means.
 
Wrong. Analysis of the XP firewall shows it blocks almost nothing
going out (although it does do pretty good at blocking incoming -
although it does NOT stealth EVERY port.). This makes it inferior to
almost any third-party firewall such as Kerio.


Unless of course you're running one of the fifty programs (including
Microsoft Office) which Microsoft says will "perform differently"
after installing SP2 - without telling anybody exactly what that means.
Click to expand...

But it does tell you how to find info for individual programs -- and
I'm glad they didn't try to put it *all* on one frigging page when 80%
of the "problems" are with bloody games anyway!

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884130
<quoting extract>
The programs that are listed in this article may experience issues
after you upgrade to Windows XP SP2. You may not notice some of these
issues. Additionally, software vendors may have resolved some of these
issues. Contact the software manufacturer or vendor for more specific
details.

You can also search the Microsoft Knowledge Base for specific issues
that are related to your program and for the effects of the increased
security features that are offered in Windows XP SP2. (Use the
WINXPSP2 keyword in your searches.)
</quoting>

Cheers, Phred.
 
***note this line you missed quoting!
Wrong. Analysis of the XP firewall shows it blocks almost nothing
going out (although it does do pretty good at blocking incoming -
although it does NOT stealth EVERY port.). This makes it inferior to
almost any third-party firewall such as Kerio.
Click to expand...

Heh, for some reason you missed this line I was replying to
and thus your entire assumption goes right out the window.
"3rd party software is better than anything they could release"

All of those 3rd party critters are NOT stand-alones, they reside upon,
and require access to, the Windows/MS Applicatiion Programming
Interfaces, the Windows Networking Stack, and even Windows
or another 3rd party that plugs into Windows...Hardware Drivers.

So...the 3rd party applications are ALL parasitic not embedded.

MS can filter outgoing if they wanted to...MS is NOT an inferior
programming company, they have the ability and the actual Code
pathways...they made the paths!
(not to mention Code and API copyrights which need to be licensed).
Unless of course you're running one of the fifty programs (including
Microsoft Office) which Microsoft says will "perform differently"
after installing SP2 - without telling anybody exactly what that
means.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a small rant than than insight or assistance,
I am using MS Office 2002 fine, given there are 150,000 (or more)
programs that Windows XP can run or hook into...plus about
100,000 various hardware configurations (mixes) that can
run with or on Windows XP...and another 190 million copies
of Windows XP in use online (perhaps more now)...that is an
insignificant list and should have been setup even for XP SP1
in most of those cases. You are right that the details of possible
problems (and their attendant fixes) are not visible at moment.

The link I gave to forum includes most (if not all) fixes/links for minor
issues with XP-SP2 and the rest are likely ones needing some
program/hardware OEM update (SP2 has been a year in Beta).
 
***note this line you missed quoting!

Heh, for some reason you missed this line I was replying to
and thus your entire assumption goes right out the window.
"3rd party software is better than anything they could release"
Click to expand...
MS can filter outgoing if they wanted to...MS is NOT an inferior
programming company, they have the ability and the actual Code
pathways...they made the paths!
(not to mention Code and API copyrights which need to be licensed).
Click to expand...

Of course the main reason why MS took out outbound filtering was that it
caused too many popups and they were afraid that it would confuse the
user too much. At least that was the impression I got from an article I
was reading.
 
Of course the main reason why MS took out outbound filtering was that it
caused too many popups and they were afraid that it would confuse the
user too much. At least that was the impression I got from an article I
was reading.
Click to expand...

You are somewhat correct (iirc), even in Windows2000 there are
numerous undocumented (but do exist) switches and registry
settings that allow for popup notices for almost any imaginable
event (like programs or intruders not finding a program or a path..).

For a company (MS) that tries to empower the user/client with
the abilities and extensions that a computer can bring (on every
desktop) they certainly seem to have a low regard for their
clients ability to learn and make independant decisions.

It's also difficult for clients/users to give "appropriate feedback"
to MS...if clients aren't even aware what things even exist.

A lot of folks turned to Windows2000 Professional editions
believing they got more control, stability, and options...to a
large degree that is correct (versus 9x or msdos environment)
but MS still slips up giving a unified documentation of even
what switches/options are available with installed programs
and services (outside of the GUI...which only calls a subsystem).

You can for example limit running programs to ONLY MS programs,
and you can (with some leapfrogging) add 3rd party programs or
dll's/exe's to the Windows automated file checker/protection. At
this point...I'm not even sure anyone in MS even remembers that.
A more intuitive method to use ACL's (via a GUI) won't hurt either.
 
Back
Top