XP SP-2

Peter, Barry and others...

Thank you!

John

Yes.

"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
If it screwed up one of your machines and not another one, has it
occured to you that the problem might be in the machine that got screwed
up?


Pete D wrote:

Onya Tim.

Perhaps you should read what I actually said. If you have had a good
experience then good on you. Did you actually do any research yourself?
I
can see that you didn't. So you are saying that a fix pack from in this
case
Microsoft should be tested for months to make sure it is okay to use. I
am
sorry I can't do that. It ****ed one of my machines and I am not happy.
You
are, great.


"Tim" wrote in message
...

IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that
they
had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for

their

own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that

testing.

Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was
a
pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for
slating
all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for
them
and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
statement referred to.

Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is

not

very long at all.

"The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of

Microsoft

apps."
________________________________________________ _______________
How many MS Windows Apps are there?

I think the answer to the above equation is very close to ZERO. If you

cross

reference the above supposed LONG list with the list of software
products
that need firewall configuration (Q842242) , you will find there are
specific issues and fixes for many of them.

You need to do a little bit more research.

I get seriously ****ed off when something good comes along such as SP2
and
uninformed people regurgitate erroneously and out of context often
misreported information that has little if any bearing on reality. The
reality is that daily many many thousands of people are deploying SP2
without issue. The biggest single source of problems would be systems
that
are already stuffed with virii and worms. Quite frankly I think it is
downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D
has
that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack

which

will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.

- Tim



"Pete D" wrote in message
...

I have installed on two machines, it totally borked one but the other
is
running fine. If really need to ask yourself if you need SP2, IBM I
understand has put out a request too all there customers not to use it.
The
list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
apps.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;884130

"The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"

That's not exactly right.

The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will
examine your system and then further download only and exactly what your
system needs.

The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All
files that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.

BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under
these two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There
is no difference.

As I understood the size thing ...if you are up to date on your updates it will
not be as large an update as the 270mb that you download
which has all the updates in it since SP1
?????
peter
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
"The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"

That's not exactly right.

The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will examine
your system and then further download only and exactly what your system needs.

The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All files
that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.

BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under these
two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There is no
difference.

Depending on where you were up to: no SP, SP1, RC1, or RC2, the further back
in time, the more will be downloaded. For my system it was about 35MB, for a
normal up to date SP1 I believe it is 60 - 80 MB so is achievable via dial
up as the downloader will resume interupted downloads from the point where
it last stopped & use spare bandwidth.

- Tim


"peter" wrote in message
news:treVc.33065$X12.30118@edtnps84...
As I understood the size thing ...if you are up to date on your updates it
will not be as large an update as the 270mb that you download
which has all the updates in it since SP1
?????
peter
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
"The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"

That's not exactly right.

The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will
examine your system and then further download only and exactly what your
system needs.

The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All
files that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.

BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under
these two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There is
no difference.

Well, since we all need or will contemplate getting it, it has everything to
do with this group! If you are running XP....nuff said!!! (However, I did
not think it would generate this much interest!)

Rick

"Nero" wrote in message
...
What has XP SP2 got to do with this group??

ALL need it?
that remains to be seen.
I heard that when SP1 came out...........
I never bothered with it and I never had any problems

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:27:18 GMT, in Wp5Vc.151973$J06.69016@pd7tw2no
(alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus) Philip Callan
wrote:

Face it Tim, if those ****wits at MS had of coded a proper OS at the
start, the Internet wouldn't be bogged down with all these viruses and spam.

You are right, it'd be bogged down with copletely different viruses
and spam.


--
Charlie

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:40:46 -0400, in
(alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
"Rick & Darlene" wrote:

Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?

Rick

I have the administrative (full 250Mb) version, and have applied it to
four machines (two PIIIs, an AMD XP 1900+ and an AMD 64 3400+) without
noteable incident.

It will complain if you don't have XP Firewalling turned on, or if it
can't detect your Antivirus Software's active status. I have an IPCop
firewall that covers my LAN, and I always disable autoprotect before
applying things like this service pack, so I told it as much and it
became happy.

It closes a load of ports that should have been closed by default
before, so many things that relied on open ports will complain. It
will also reset some security related settings to a more secure
default, which may change the behaviour of some apps. All of these
things are configurable however - this won't surprise you if you have
Read TF Manual, but has caused a number of the Microphobes to froth a
little.

In conclusion I would say that it makes the OS safer, and is a sound
update. Of course, any tool is potentially limited by whoever wields
it

Cheers


--
Charlie

Charlie King wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:27:18 GMT, in Wp5Vc.151973$J06.69016@pd7tw2no
(alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus) Philip Callan
wrote:


Face it Tim, if those ****wits at MS had of coded a proper OS at the
start, the Internet wouldn't be bogged down with all these viruses and spam.


You are right, it'd be bogged down with copletely different viruses
and spam.



There have been less than 20 *nix viruses, and Windows/DOS account for
more than 60,000

Care to rephrase your statement?

Even if Unix/Linux was deployed in place of Windows, it /does not/ allow
for a whole host of viruses that Windows does, the fact that attachments
are /EXECUTABLE/ is a Microsoft brainfart, the fact that the 'default'
install of anything other than XP-SP2 by default leaves /many/ services
and holes open that have /no/ use to a private individual not on a
domain etc....


The SPAM, I could understand, but without zombie boxes to SPEW all that
spam, it still wouldn't be as much.