SP2, yes or no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElJerid
  • Start date Start date
E

ElJerid

I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are
generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP...
My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast
antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the
router)?
Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load?
 
I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are
generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP...
My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast
antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the
router)?
Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load?
Click to expand...


SP2 is a pack designed to counter flaws present mostly in
IE5 and OE.

Remember, your OS is vulnerable only based on applications
that have access to the internet, or receive incoming
connections from it. This excludes more obvious and
universial flaws like choosing to install malware yourself.

Summary - If you insist on using MS' insecure apps, yes it
is a reasonable value for security. If you are really
serious about security you will have already abandoned IE
and OE, and SP2 won't make a significant difference. If you
want to use either, do install Sp2 to counter their flaws.
 
darklight

IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5)
OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more).

Eljerid

In my opinion you would be silly NOT to use Service Pack 2 with XP
a) because it's available free. Burn it to a cd for future use if you download it or even better learn how to slipstream
it into an XP disk.
b) you need Service Pack 1 to get usb2 capability so you might as well use sp2 because it includes everything in sp1.
 
wasbit said:
darklight

IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5)
OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more).

Eljerid

In my opinion you would be silly NOT to use Service Pack 2 with XP
a) because it's available free. Burn it to a cd for future use if you download it or even better learn how to slipstream
it into an XP disk.
b) you need Service Pack 1 to get usb2 capability so you might as well use sp2 because it includes everything in sp1.
Click to expand...

erm...
Overlooking that XP has always had some build of IE-6 not 5

The XP Service Packs are more than just bug fixes for IE and OE -
they apply bug fixes right across the entire OS.

It's bad enough that we are still waiting for an official SP-3,
why insist on using an OS that isn't even patched to SP-2 ?

One point that may be worth making is that if your XP is a build
*before* SP-1a, ( including SP-1 ) it will have the now unsupported
Microsoft Java Virtual Machine.

Applying SP-2 will neither uninstall nor patch the JVM -
it should be uninstalled manually.
 
LOL, just becaues it's free doesn't necessarily mean it is a
benefit to one's use of the system instead of an annoyance
or increased overhead to use without a benefit (in some
cases).


NO, needing a functionality from SP1 in no way suggests you
might as well install the next service pack instead.
Install patches when you feel there is a need to do so,
randomly accepting whatever MS distributes without a need
will in best case cause no problem but in worst case will.

It's your system, install anything when there is merit which
there might be, but not necessarily. Many people don't have
a need for SP2, but on the other hand many who installed it
for protection from (mostly vulnerabilities in OE or IE)
still don't have the comprehensive protection they hoped for
so would still have to abandon IE and OE to gain that, thus
removing the need for SP2.

As stated previously, it is about what vulnerabilities a
particular system has in it's use. SP2 isn't an antivirus
application, it doesn't close any open ports you can't close
yourself, nor replacing those apps you use to connect to
other systems/servers which store and serve up
viri/malware/etc which those connecting apps or the user
might install.

In other words, many people will be a bit safer with SP2
installed, but cannot then entirely abandon the safe
computing practices that would have made SP2 mostly
unnecessary.

erm...
Overlooking that XP has always had some build of IE-6 not 5
Click to expand...

Yes, I mistyped 5 when I meant 6.

The XP Service Packs are more than just bug fixes for IE and OE -
they apply bug fixes right across the entire OS.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those that are critical are also available as
individual patches.


It's bad enough that we are still waiting for an official SP-3,
why insist on using an OS that isn't even patched to SP-2 ?
Click to expand...

Why "insist" at all? SP2 isn't just a bunch of patches. It
has further functionality changes and it is the system
owner's choice whether these are a good or bad idea. Don't
ever feel compelled to run what someone wants you to, it is
your system and your choice.

One point that may be worth making is that if your XP is a build
*before* SP-1a, ( including SP-1 ) it will have the now unsupported
Microsoft Java Virtual Machine.
Click to expand...

These days if you need good java support, you'll have to
update it from Sun either way.

Applying SP-2 will neither uninstall nor patch the JVM -
it should be uninstalled manually.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, no uninstalling is needed, just get the latest Java
from Sun and install it.
 
kony said:
These days if you need good java support, you'll have to
update it from Sun either way.
Click to expand...

Well, it's arguable that getting "good" Java support has required a Sun
JVM for a long time... ;)

The point is that the Microsoft JVM is a known point of vulnerability,
with a number of exploits available, and hasn't been patched for years.

Applying SP-2 to a system that has the MS JVM installed will neither
uninstall the JVM nor patch it to final release ( build 3810 )

Does this matter if the Sun JVM is the default ?
Maybe not, but I prefer to uninstall it anyway, as it's easy to do :)


an example write-up on removal is at:
http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/java.php
 
wasbit said:
darklight

IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5)
OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you
even more).
Click to expand...

question is there an alternative to IE OE where you could remove IE and OE
 
darklight said:
question is there an alternative to IE OE where you could remove IE and OE
Click to expand...


You cannot completely remove either IE or OE. Both are embedded in the
OS. But that's not the whole story.

OE can be (partially) removed, but MS doesn't make it easy: "Add/Remove
Windows components" is a nasty little applet, since it does not tell you
which components are actually installed. If you un/click the wrong
boxes, you'll be surprised at what dis/appears.

IE is necessary for security updates. Windows Update will not run on
other browsers (believe me, I've tried.) Not all updates are fixes to
flaws in IE or OE (eg, .NET has had several updates.) Some updates just
add functionality (eg, improved wireless networking, IE7.) In my
experience, updating everything has improved stability, too, so unlike
others in this thread, I recommend all updates. (I didn't update the
bar-code reader bits, since I don't use a bar code reader.) So keep IE,
just don't make it your default browser. You can use it to update
manually, or you can use Automatic Update, which fetches updates in the
background. Both permit selection of which updates to install.

Alternative to IE: Firefox. It's free from mozilla.org, and its
extensions work well. (BTW, IE7, which is now a free update to XP, now
includes many of the features of Firefox.) There are others, I've tried
Opera (now free), it does a few things differently, but is essentially
the same as Firefox. BTW, Firefox is the open source derivative of Netscape.

Alternative to OE: any other e-mail client will do the job. Check their
features, and pick one that does what you want, and (more importantly
IMO) does _not_ do what you don't want. I use PMMail (about $30), which
does not do images or HTML, which is precisely the reason that I use it.
Thunderbird (free from mozilla.org) does more things, but I don't like
the way it handles multiple accounts (e-mail addresses). I've not tried
others. For newsgroups, I use Thunderbird, despite its weaknesses: can't
handle multi-part posts, and chokes on some but not all yEnc coded
posts. Its interface is better designed (== suits me better ;-)) than
the alternatives (and I've tried a bunch of them.)

HTH
 
ElJerid said:
I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are
generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP...
My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast
antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the
router)?
Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load?
Click to expand...

M$ does not support/help with problems unless SP2 has been installed.
This has been the situation since Nov 2006. If you use an OS such as
Winodws XP you should use all the latest up to date upgrades/patches
as a general rule. Third party software suppliers usually must modify
their programs to be compatible with the latest configurations. XP will
not be supported indefinately. It came out in 2001 and most software
has an eol, end of life. Around 7 years seems to be a common rule of
thumb. If companies both hardware and software supported their
products indefinitely, most would not have a cash flow so it is vital to
their business model to obsolete prior stuff. Linux is an exception but
even there, they drop support for hardware that gets too old and soft-
ware that drops in popularity. If you/anyone is worried about
invasions/viruses/unauthorized mods to your system, it is better to have
the latest updates. Invasions are usually do to going to the wrong place
or opening the wrong email.

later,
charles....
 
question is there an alternative to IE OE where you could remove IE and OE
Click to expand...

Don't remove IE !! A few applications will call/run IE even tho Firefox is the
default browser. Just "remove" IE from the desktop & "start programs" so
one isn't "tempted"

Kinda like SP2. Some apps are now saying SP2 must be installed prior to
installation, e.g. office ultimate 2007, but some other non-apps are more
intelligent in only "suggesting" SP2.
 
ElJerid said:
I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are
generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP...
My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where
Avast
antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the
router)?
Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load?
Click to expand...

I vote yes to SP2. It has some security features that everyone should have
even with AV and FW in place. The only reason I can think of not to install
would be lack of space on the HDD. But with today's really large drives it
should not be an issue. Others may disagree but I think the consensus would
be to install it. HTH JG
 
I vote yes to SP2. It has some security features that everyone should have
even with AV and FW in place. The only reason I can think of not to install
would be lack of space on the HDD. But with today's really large drives it
should not be an issue. Others may disagree but I think the consensus would
be to install it. HTH JG
Click to expand...


Ok, you are thinking of only one, but how about that with
secure practices, it only has a negative effect? It's not
an issue of HDD space, it's a matter of what the real goal
is. If that goal is security, SP2 doesn't really provide
it, but what does provide it makes SP2 obsolete.

On the other hand, today's systems are faster than ever,
maybe the impact of it isn't perceived in a use and it's
just easier than individually picking a bunch of patches
that do apply. It's a very subjective decision.

Ironically, win98 users with secure computing practices are
a lot safer than winxp users with SP2 installed. The key is
where the exploits are, not whether you have the patch du
jour because patching holes is always a matter of playing
catch up, taking an insecure feature set and just dodging
each bullet over and over again.
 
Wolf said:
You cannot completely remove either IE or OE. Both are embedded in the
OS. But that's not the whole story.

OE can be (partially) removed, but MS doesn't make it easy: "Add/Remove
Windows components" is a nasty little applet, since it does not tell you
which components are actually installed. If you un/click the wrong
boxes, you'll be surprised at what dis/appears.

IE is necessary for security updates. Windows Update will not run on
other browsers (believe me, I've tried.) Not all updates are fixes to
flaws in IE or OE (eg, .NET has had several updates.) Some updates just
add functionality (eg, improved wireless networking, IE7.) In my
experience, updating everything has improved stability, too, so unlike
others in this thread, I recommend all updates. (I didn't update the
bar-code reader bits, since I don't use a bar code reader.) So keep IE,
just don't make it your default browser. You can use it to update
manually, or you can use Automatic Update, which fetches updates in the
background. Both permit selection of which updates to install.

Alternative to IE: Firefox. It's free from mozilla.org, and its
extensions work well. (BTW, IE7, which is now a free update to XP, now
includes many of the features of Firefox.) There are others, I've tried
Opera (now free), it does a few things differently, but is essentially
the same as Firefox. BTW, Firefox is the open source derivative of
Netscape.

Alternative to OE: any other e-mail client will do the job. Check their
features, and pick one that does what you want, and (more importantly
IMO) does _not_ do what you don't want. I use PMMail (about $30), which
does not do images or HTML, which is precisely the reason that I use it.
Thunderbird (free from mozilla.org) does more things, but I don't like
the way it handles multiple accounts (e-mail addresses). I've not tried
others. For newsgroups, I use Thunderbird, despite its weaknesses: can't
handle multi-part posts, and chokes on some but not all yEnc coded
posts. Its interface is better designed (== suits me better ;-)) than
the alternatives (and I've tried a bunch of them.)

HTH
Click to expand...


thanks for the info
 
kony said:
Ok, you are thinking of only one, but how about that with
secure practices, it only has a negative effect? It's not
an issue of HDD space, it's a matter of what the real goal
is. If that goal is security, SP2 doesn't really provide
it, but what does provide it makes SP2 obsolete.

On the other hand, today's systems are faster than ever,
maybe the impact of it isn't perceived in a use and it's
just easier than individually picking a bunch of patches
that do apply. It's a very subjective decision.

Ironically, win98 users with secure computing practices are
a lot safer than winxp users with SP2 installed. The key is
where the exploits are, not whether you have the patch du
jour because patching holes is always a matter of playing
catch up, taking an insecure feature set and just dodging
each bullet over and over again.
Click to expand...

Apparently, there are different opinions about SP2...
The issue is not disk space, of course, but the load on the system. Reason
of starting this topic was to build a "light" XP system and to remove
anything that does not have a real added value, like WMP, Messenger,
security center, windows firewall, unused services, aso.
I believe the same (better?) level of security can be achieved by using
external antiviruses/antispam and firewall, plus a lot of common sense.
But maybe the best solution is to install SP2 anyways (in order to have the
latest fixes) and remove unwanted items.
 
Back
Top