xp is fine - why should I install service pack 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
with enormous Service Pack 2?
 
In
John said:
XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix
it'
with enormous Service Pack 2?
Click to expand...


SP2 is much more than a fix for problems you may be seeing. It
has thousands of lines of new code in it, and makes many
improvements and fixes to problems that you may not have yet
experienced. See List of fixes included in Windows XP Service
Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2

Over and above that, it's a security-oriented service pack. It
closes security exposures that in some cases have not yet been
exploited. That means that without it, you can be vulnerable to
new attacks that will be made in the future.

An occasional person has a problem with it, but most
installations are easy, straightforward and problem-free if you
prepare properly for it. See
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45
 
Some but whether it is most I don't know. I do know that
there are security fixes that are new in SP2.

If you don't install SP2 and you get hacked/infected that is
your problem, except you will be then spreading viruses to
everybody else.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


|
| "Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...
|
| > Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
|
| But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
|
| Regards,
| Joe Steele
|
|
|
 
Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few months
until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a major
upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.

Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some common
sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city, when
that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to) it.
Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.

There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better than
the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally free
of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing it.
Not yet, anyway.
 
Kevin said:
Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few months
until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a major
upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.

Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some common
sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city, when
that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to) it.
Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.

There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better than
the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally free
of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing it.
Not yet, anyway.
Click to expand...
Kevin, you say that you are waiting and later on state that other items are
better. I don't understand how you can profess to know if you haven't tried
it.

Further, there a millions of successful installs that have made those
systems more secure and therefore mine. Our computer club has installed not
only SP2 on all 15 Windows based computers. Now for a contrary position, the
same club has installed Firefox 1.0 as the default browser on the same
computers.

Computer viruses are much like a herd of cattle, immunize 85% and the entire
herd is relatively safe.
 
You appear to view SP2 as a bugfix. It is not. It is the security revision
to XP. A lot of the OS has been recompiled to take advantage of such things
as data execution protection. Whether or not you 'freeze' your OS in time
is your responsibility.
 
Colin Barnhorst said:
You appear to view SP2 as a bugfix. It is not. It is the security revision
to XP. A lot of the OS has been recompiled to take advantage of such things
as data execution protection. Whether or not you 'freeze' your OS in time
is your responsibility.
Click to expand...

I *had* taken the trouble to read the MS publicity on SP2 and I also
had read about some difficulties people had in getting their trusted
virus protection and firewall systems to work with SP2. I had also
noted the odd poster about difficulty with uninstalling it. Hence my
question.

With Win98 (and now with xp) , I have run Computer Associates' EZ
antivirus (which updates data most days and is always checked before I
download email) for some years now, and firewalls likewise, originally
Zone Alarm and now Agnitum Outpost - all on recommendations, at the
time, from the appropriate newsgroups. I have seen many attempts to
get into my system bounce off and I have, fortunately, not yet been
caught at the wrong psychological moment by a convincing-looking
attachment which got to me before CA did.

This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and get
problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very supportive - and
much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate to
conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go for
it.
 
|
|
| "Kevin" wrote:
|
| > Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
| > talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few
months
| > until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a
major
| > upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
| > that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
| > Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.
| >
| > Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some
common
| > sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city,
when
| > that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to)
it.
| > Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.
| >
| > There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better
than
| > the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally
free
| > of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
| > required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing
it.
| > Not yet, anyway.
| >
| > | > > XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
| > > with enormous Service Pack 2?
| >
| >
| >
| Kevin, you say that you are waiting and later on state that other items
are
| better. I don't understand how you can profess to know if you haven't
tried
| it.

Do you mean how can he know that the free Zone Alarm or Sygate firewalls are
better than the one-way Xp firewall?

| Further, there a millions of successful installs that have made those
| systems more secure and therefore mine.

Millions of successful installs have made those systems yours???

| Our computer club has installed not only SP2 on all 15 Windows based
| computers.

And the rest of the sentence is...??

| Now for a contrary position, the same club has installed Firefox 1.0 as
the |default browser on the same computers.

Contrary to what?

| Computer viruses are much like a herd of cattle, immunize 85% and the
entire
| herd is relatively safe.

Did you mean *computers* are like a herd of cattle? How do you immunize a
virus?? And from what?
 
....
| This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and
get
| problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very
supportive - and
| much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate
to
| conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go
for
| it.

Yes, you've had a good mix of responses, and I admit I agree with
all but one, that one possibily being a mis-speak.

However, one item no one mentioned is: w/r to future fixes, free
updates, etc., you'll need SP2. Pre SP2 XP is headed for the
non-support bin, if not already there. MS has already stated
there will be no further updates for pre-SP2 and I -think- they
are discontinuing support also.

IMO, MS wishes SP2 is what they had originally released prior to
even SP1. Else they wouldn't have made this much of an upgrade
free, even including the S&H when you order the CD: a first for
MS, far as I know. That's when you get with the rush-to-market
mentality of the world these days. Users demand it NOW,
companies try to provide it NOW, and you get a zoo full of never
before seen bugs. That's why Linux, et al are getting good reps:
they're late to market and lots cheaper, but ... you have to wait
while the software is gotten mostly right before you and I see
it. Meanwhile, MS becomes solidly entrenched and looks like
they're here for the long haul, so ... .
Some think the continual evolution of windows patches is
intentional but I've never been able to buy into that one.
Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
easily managed.

Pop
 
Product support for WinXP SP1 doesn't end until 17-Sep-2006

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps

Tom
| ...
| | This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and
| get
| | problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very
| supportive - and
| | much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate
| to
| | conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go
| for
| | it.
|
| Yes, you've had a good mix of responses, and I admit I agree with
| all but one, that one possibily being a mis-speak.
|
| However, one item no one mentioned is: w/r to future fixes, free
| updates, etc., you'll need SP2. Pre SP2 XP is headed for the
| non-support bin, if not already there. MS has already stated
| there will be no further updates for pre-SP2 and I -think- they
| are discontinuing support also.
|
| IMO, MS wishes SP2 is what they had originally released prior to
| even SP1. Else they wouldn't have made this much of an upgrade
| free, even including the S&H when you order the CD: a first for
| MS, far as I know. That's when you get with the rush-to-market
| mentality of the world these days. Users demand it NOW,
| companies try to provide it NOW, and you get a zoo full of never
| before seen bugs. That's why Linux, et al are getting good reps:
| they're late to market and lots cheaper, but ... you have to wait
| while the software is gotten mostly right before you and I see
| it. Meanwhile, MS becomes solidly entrenched and looks like
| they're here for the long haul, so ... .
| Some think the continual evolution of windows patches is
| intentional but I've never been able to buy into that one.
| Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
| recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
| catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
| easily managed.
|
| Pop
|
|
 
Pop said:
Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
easily managed.
Click to expand...

'tis done. And there were no problems (so far) and one bonus - I had
been having trouble with my firewall blocking off the internet. I had
'solved' it by going back to a previous firewall version. Now I find
that, after a funny sort of start, in which the problem seemed to be
still there, it corrected itself after a couple of restarts and I'm
able to run with the most recent version.

This is the second indication that I've had that XP likes 'to be told
twice' - is this fundamental, or common experience, I wonder?

So, at the moment, with another 1.3 gig of programme, my HDD is
already beginning to look inadequate (I've been through the 'do I
replace the computer or upgrade the HDD' issue and have decided on the
HDD upgrade) but commitment towards XP is growing steadily.

Part of that commitment springs from the support I'm getting from this
ng - for which, a heartfelt 'thankyou.'
 
Hi, Joe.
But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
Click to expand...

NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many hotfixes after SP1
and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster worm came in a
hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2. It is, of course,
included in SP2.

And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing Blaster fix would
easily justify SP2 all by itself.

RC
 
| Hi, Joe.
|
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
|
| NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many hotfixes after SP1
| and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster worm came in a
| hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2. It is, of
course,
| included in SP2.
|
| And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing Blaster fix would
| easily justify SP2 all by itself.
|
| RC
| --
| R. C. White, CPA
| San Marcos, TX
| (e-mail address removed)
| Microsoft Windows MVP
|

Won't argue over the pros and cons of installing SP2; each person has to
weigh the potential risks and benefits for him- or herself. But if you're
saying that the Blaster fix is worth a potentially 250Mb+ "patch" when all
one has to do is turn on a firewall, I have to wonder.
 
Many thanks for the reply RC.

Perhaps my comment to Jim should have read <But many (most?) of those
problems were fixed in SP1, along with its many updates>.

I installed SP2 as soon as was made available, but I do feel that a large
part of it was to enable folks who had not downloaded the many, previous
updates to catch up. A decision which I approve of but should be considered
when answering John's (the OP) question.

Regards
Joe Steele
 
SP2 is part new, but it is a one shot roll-up of all
previously issued SP and patches. So that the only reason
not to see previous patches listed, would be if a patch was
revoked.


| Hi, Joe.
|
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1,
Jim.
|
| NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many
hotfixes after SP1
| and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster
worm came in a
| hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2.
It is, of course,
| included in SP2.
|
| And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing
Blaster fix would
| easily justify SP2 all by itself.
|
| RC
| --
| R. C. White, CPA
| San Marcos, TX
| (e-mail address removed)
| Microsoft Windows MVP
|
| | >
| > "Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...
| >
| >> Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
| >
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1,
Jim.
| >
| > Regards,
| > Joe Steele
|
 
....
|
| This is the second indication that I've had that XP likes 'to
be told
| twice' - is this fundamental, or common experience, I wonder?

Dunno why, but have the same experience here. XP in fact, seems
to be a lot more self-healing than any of the preceding versions
were.

|
| So, at the moment, with another 1.3 gig of programme, my HDD is
| already beginning to look inadequate (I've been through the 'do
I
| replace the computer or upgrade the HDD' issue and have decided
on the
| HDD upgrade) but commitment towards XP is growing steadily.
....

If you mean you're on a slow machine, you might also consider
having lots of RAM, maybe a Gig if your mb/CMOS will handle it.
A lot of people like to say anything over 512 Meg doesn't help
much, but apparently it does with XP on the slower machines; I've
seen lots of happy campers who added lots of RAM. Then again,
for a few hundred more, since you already have the speakers,
monitor, etc., a new box doesn't cost all THAT much more than
some RAM chips, and with all those nice new bells & whistles to
play with ... . <g> 'hppy 'puting!

Pop
 
Back
Top