When did Micro$oft stop providing updates for XP-SP2?

[BillW50]

| If Macro$haft was still creating patches and updates for SP-2 during the
| years 2006 through 2010, then I presume they simply didn't yank those
| updates from the WU server in August 2010.
|

Why not? As far as they're concerned, SP3 suprercedes SP2.
SP3 presumably contains all of those patches.

This is called blind faith. Unfortunately, it isn't true. For example
some newer patches supersedes some previous patches. Thus they are not
included with SP3.

MS defines SPs as versions. It's common to see software requirements
that say things like "requires XP SP3, Vista, Windows 7". Software
developers know what to expect with a SP.

New bugs for one. But Microsoft nor other developers have no idea what
harm the updated patches will do on machines with random third party
software and drivers. Nothing is worse than trying to figure why
something else broke from an update.

As someone who apparently wants specific patches without getting
others, you're in a tiny minority of tweakers.

Why would anybody blindly install anything without learning what it is
supposed to do in the first place? Isn't those who blindly install
updates without knowing anything about them known as lemmings?

| But it's not like MS totally turned it's back on SP-2 because it *IS*
| offering me something (the 3 items I mentioned previously).
|

Those aren't exactly patches. One is spyware. One is anti-malware.
The 3rd is SP3. You're arguing your own logic out of frustration. That
won't change anything. If you *really* want to get only specific
patches and not others than you'll just have to roll up your
sleeves, so to speak, and figure out the details.

We have to since you know Microsoft does a lousy job of choosing for us.
How would they know what hardware you have on your machine(s)? How would
they know what legacy software you are running?

For Microsoft's method to work well, you must buy the latest machines,
the latest Windows OS, the latest Office, having the latest drivers, and
abandon any outdated applications, etc. But then you have to accept all
of the new bugs, yet undiscovered new security holes, etc. Who wants to
live that way? Communists?

 

[BillW50]

Yes, just one version. I'm using it for news on Win7 and TB for mail.

Yes I have heard that Windows Mail runs fine on Windows 7 and 8
machines. Thus why I am interested in checking Windows Mail out. I never
had a Vista machine yet. But I do have the install disc and a few licenses.

Since you're running Win7 Pro, you could us OE in an XP virtual
environment if you wanted to.

If I wanted to run XP, I just grab a laptop or a tablet off of the
bookshelf and pop it into the dock. It is very much like swapping large
floppies. I don't know how running XP in a VM would be better than that?

 

[Mayayana]

| > | If Macro$haft was still creating patches and updates for SP-2 during
the
| > | years 2006 through 2010, then I presume they simply didn't yank those
| > | updates from the WU server in August 2010.
| > |
| >
| > Why not? As far as they're concerned, SP3 suprercedes SP2.
| > SP3 presumably contains all of those patches.
|
| This is called blind faith. Unfortunately, it isn't true. For example
| some newer patches supersedes some previous patches. Thus they are not
| included with SP3.
|
For those there would be post-SP3 patches. I'm
just talking about why there's no reason to have
patches for SP2 when SP3 is out.


| Why would anybody blindly install anything without learning what it is
| supposed to do in the first place? Isn't those who blindly install
| updates without knowing anything about them known as lemmings?
|

I don't research it all. I wait until long after a SP has
come out, to see how it's worked out. Then I install it.
In the meantime, I never allow Windows Update service
to run at all and I block anything trying to call home. (Like
HTML Help, which will try to update itself even if Windows
Update is turned off.)

Though even my cautious approach doesn't always work.
I waited at least a year, I think, to update from IE4 to IE5.
Yet even after waiting for them to get the bugs out it was
a disaster. IE5 ran in slow motion online. I never figured out
why. I switched to Netscape and haven't used IE online since.

 

[Bruce Hagen]

+1
AND disable that annoying compact reminder prompt (after 99 OE openings)
by using that .vbs compactcheck.vbs file that someone mentioned here
(maybe it was you, Bruce).

So just compact the OE dbx files manually every so often when offline.

You can tell when its getting more bloated by routinely checking its size
in Tools, Options, Maintenance, Compact Now, but note that does NOT
compact ALL folders - you need to instead use the File, Folder, Compact
All Folders option from the main menu in OE.

I didn't know about the script. I always compacted long before the 100
closings anyway.

 

[BillW50]

In Mayayana typed:

For those there would be post-SP3 patches. I'm
just talking about why there's no reason to have
patches for SP2 when SP3 is out.

The only useful part of SP3 I liked was KB909095. No reason to install
SP3 if you only want KB909095. I never ran across any other part of SP3
that I wanted yet. But maybe someday I may.

You know if Microsoft wants to convince people like me to update, they
must have at least one killer new feature to make it all worth it.
Without it, what is the point? To fix something that is already working
just fine anyway? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't research it all. I wait until long after a SP has
come out, to see how it's worked out. Then I install it.
In the meantime, I never allow Windows Update service
to run at all and I block anything trying to call home. (Like
HTML Help, which will try to update itself even if Windows
Update is turned off.)

Well that is better than installing blindly. Users who installed SP3
when it first came out had lots of huge problems, some became unbootable
after that SP. Who needs that nonsense?

And we are kind of alike here. While you wait, I dunno a few months or
so for the dust to clear. But I prefer to wait much longer. So maybe
someday I may need SP3 for something (and one of my machines does have
SP3 installed), but so far that day hasn't come yet. As so far my SP2
machines are far better than my SP3 is.

And you know what? All of the software that states that XP SP3 is a
minimum requirement... well I haven't found anything that won't also run
fine under XP SP2 too. You know what that means? That means they lied to
you! Who needs that nonsense? I get enough lies from governments,
religion, academia, science, etc. already. :-(

Though even my cautious approach doesn't always work.
I waited at least a year, I think, to update from IE4 to IE5.
Yet even after waiting for them to get the bugs out it was
a disaster. IE5 ran in slow motion online. I never figured out
why.

Yeah, I don't recall using IE5 very long. I do recall I used IE5.5 a bit
longer than 5.0. Although it wasn't very long when MS came out with IE6
and that was very much better. And IE6 SP2 was even better yet.

Today I don't use IE much for anything. But for the times I do use it, I
don't find it bad at all. It has come a very long way from its humble
beginnings. I even like IE feed reader better than anything else I have
used. Firefox's feed reader is just awful! I would be so embarrassed if
I had written something so bad. I swear Mozilla has no shame.

I switched to Netscape and haven't used IE online since.

Oh man! You never saw that Netscape documentary, did you? Before IE4,
Netscape was hitting Microsoft with everything they had. I am sure a lot
of it was just downright illegal, but Netscape doesn't care about
playing fair at all. Their mentality was to destroy anything in their
path and to ask questions later. They were just pure evil and even
admitted to it on film!

Then Microsoft's answer was making IE modular starting with IE4. When
Netscape first saw IE4, they knew the game was over and they didn't have
the intelligence or the means to do the same with Netscape. So they
didn't feel the need to compete with Microsoft or any other browser for
that matter anymore and just gave up and left all of their users in
limbo. What a bunch of nice guys not!

 

[Nil]

So how do you unfix the OE6 bug contained in SP3 that causes
folders.dbx file in use error when compacting?

There are simple workarounds for that. You knew that at one time, but
you seem to pretend now they don't exist.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

OK. Someone in here mentioned it, and I simply put it into the
startup folder, as I was getting tired of the prompts (since I often
reopen and close OE for both mail and newsgroups)

I heard of that script before, but I never saw the need for it. As all
you have to do is to create a reg file to reset the count. I think it
was dumb for Microsoft to add this feature in SP2 in the first place.
Damn updates.

 

[Bruce Hagen]

In Bill in Co typed:

I heard of that script before, but I never saw the need for it. As all you
have to do is to create a reg file to reset the count. I think it was dumb
for Microsoft to add this feature in SP2 in the first place. Damn updates.

And if you never compact, "Poof" go your messages.

 

[BillW50]

In Nil typed:

There are simple workarounds for that. You knew that at one time, but
you seem to pretend now they don't exist.

Yes there are workarounds and band aids. But workarounds and band aids
are for people who don't know any better. Some of us have more pride in
our work. Although I admit in an emergency, fine... use the workaround.
For everyday use, totally unacceptable!

 

[BillW50]

In Bruce Hagen typed:

And if you never compact, "Poof" go your messages.

Not to worry, every machine here has the same messages. Plus there are
backups and even the servers has everything too. Although since using OE
since the beginning, it hasn't happened to me yet.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

But how many things do you know of that don't need (or benefit from)
at least some workarounds and/or tweaks??? (rhetorical). So
it's all just a matter of degree in the final analysis.

But I do have one machine with XP SP3 installed and I am not impressed.
If anything SP3 is a tad on the flaky side if you ask me. Little subtle
things just doesn't work right and my XP SP2 machines are rock stable.
Hard to convince me that SP3 is somehow better at this point. I do need
SP2 plus KB909095 though.

Plus it's nice to have the option of being able to install a bit more
software if you ever want it (that requires XP SP3 as a minimum)

You know I install software on my XP SP2 machines all of the time that
claim that. So far I haven't had a problem.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

In addition to being a good and recommended practice to periodically
compact ANY database, it will allow OE to open a bit quicker, too.
(At least I think I've noticed that over time, but I haven't timed
it.

Yes supposedly anyway. Although OE was designed for 486s and tiny slow
hard drives and it is very fast on those. Giving it a Core2 Duo and a
SSD, it is hard to imagine how it could be slow at anything. It is so
much faster than other readers, I can't believe others don't want to
speed theirs up?

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "so much faster"! But perhaps
noticeably so. (At this point I can't recall for sure, since I
pretty much just routinely compact it nowadays. But I seem to
remember it making some noticeable difference IF you went a LONG time
without ever compacting it and let it become a bit bloated).

I don't doubt it for a second. Same could be said of defragging, another
practice that I don't take too seriously. Like I had often waited two or
more years and defrag says it is 50% or worse. So I record boot times
and how long it takes for my favorite applications to open. Then I
defrag and then test how much better times are. And it always had been
like 1 or 2% improvement. That is just peanuts! I could add more RAM,
faster drive and blow away that improvement totally. 1 or 2% isn't
really noticeable and won't make any difference for me. Only around 20%
improvement raises my eyebrows. Not much, but now we are talking.

I find the same for compacting OE. It helps a tiny bit, but nothing to
write home about. This machine hasn't been compacting in a few years and
it reports the following:

2.43GB in use
839MB (0%) wasted space

I don't understand the 0% thing, usually it says 10% or higher or
something. If it is using 2.43GB and about 839MB is wasted space, it
should say something like 25%. Okay whatever. 839MB I could gain is
nothing, since I could record a one hour TV program and blow that much
easy (and often do). Speed? I wouldn't expect anything better than 5%
improvement at best. If you are looking for huge improvement, compacting
OE or defragging just isn't going to cut it. There are so many other
ways like adding more RAM or going for a SSD is far better. I just don't
understand focusing on peanuts when you could do better.

I have run across people who claim that defragging helps tremendous.
While I haven't seen it here, they are either lying or doing something
differently than I am. As what else could it be? Same for compacting OE.
Some claim compacting OE keeps their database from crashing. That could
be indeed true. As how would I know? As mine never does.

 

[Bruce Hagen]

In Bill in Co typed:

I don't doubt it for a second. Same could be said of defragging, another
practice that I don't take too seriously. Like I had often waited two or
more years and defrag says it is 50% or worse. So I record boot times and
how long it takes for my favorite applications to open. Then I defrag and
then test how much better times are. And it always had been like 1 or 2%
improvement. That is just peanuts! I could add more RAM, faster drive and
blow away that improvement totally. 1 or 2% isn't really noticeable and
won't make any difference for me. Only around 20% improvement raises my
eyebrows. Not much, but now we are talking.

I find the same for compacting OE. It helps a tiny bit, but nothing to
write home about. This machine hasn't been compacting in a few years and
it reports the following:

2.43GB in use
839MB (0%) wasted space

I don't understand the 0% thing, usually it says 10% or higher or
something. If it is using 2.43GB and about 839MB is wasted space, it
should say something like 25%. Okay whatever. 839MB I could gain is
nothing, since I could record a one hour TV program and blow that much
easy (and often do). Speed? I wouldn't expect anything better than 5%
improvement at best. If you are looking for huge improvement, compacting
OE or defragging just isn't going to cut it. There are so many other ways
like adding more RAM or going for a SSD is far better. I just don't
understand focusing on peanuts when you could do better.

I have run across people who claim that defragging helps tremendous. While
I haven't seen it here, they are either lying or doing something
differently than I am. As what else could it be? Same for compacting OE.
Some claim compacting OE keeps their database from crashing. That could be
indeed true. As how would I know? As mine never does.

Defragging and compacting are apples and oranges.

Say your Inbox.dbx file is 600MB and you delete 500MB of messages. Is the
Inbox.dbx file now 100MB? No! It is still 600MB until you compact and the
DBX files have a 2GB capacity before everything is wiped out.

If you have never experienced lost messages, you obviously are compacting
but choose not to admit it.

Why does OE insist on compacting folders when I close it?:
http://www.insideoe.com/faqs/why.htm#compact

 

[Hot-Text]

I have a cloned image of an XP hard drive that was last updated in June
2006. This is SP2, not SP3.
I recently booted the drive and activated automatic updates.
I was presented with 3 (three) updates. One was Genuine disAdvantage
(which I've declined in the past and I declined again), the second was
XP-SP3, and the third was Malicious software removal tool (June 2014).
So I was somewhat surprised to be offered a June version of MSRT (did we
know that MS was continuing to offer those beyond April 2014?).
But my main question is - wasn't (or didn't) MS offer updates to SP2 for
some time even after SP3 was released? And have they now withdrawn
those updates?
Or did MS stop ALL updates, fixes and patches for SP2 the minute that
SP3 came out?

Yes But there is a Work around
< http://www.oldapps.com/internet_explorer.php?system=Windows_XP >
Update IE to a 8
Then go to
Start
Then to
All programs
Click on
Windows Update

< http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us >

If it it did not work

In IE8 Cliick Tools
Browsing History
Delete All
Settings Chick
View objects
C:\WINDOWS\Downloaded Program Files
< http://newsmaster.mynews.ath.cx/users/MPWG/microsoftupdate.jpg >
Delete all files in that Folder
Close
ok
ok
Reload
microsoft update webpage

There now it works

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

In the case you've mentioned above, you have a database file that is
2.43 GB in size with 839 MB wasted space. I think that's a pretty
"poor" database file!

Sure, but compacting it changes nothing except make it smaller. Sure it
was probably a big performance boost on a 486 or something. But with
modern machines, saving a few microseconds isn't going to change
anything really.

Granted, with large disks these days, the disk space wasted may not
be such a big deal, but that misses some other points in having a
compacted database file (and this principle applies to any database,
for that matter).

Sure, but look at the bloat on your average web page these days. Most of
the pages are full of scripts, frames, ads, flash, etc. Way too much
unnecessary nonsense. But what are you going to do?

For example, in the event of any potential database corruption, the
chances of database recovery will improve if there is less extraneous
BS in the file to wade through to find the next relevant data
sectors. (BTDT manually once, with one DBASE file a long time ago
using a HEX editor. It was tedious even then). I would expect the
same to be true for any database recovery programs that try to
recover the data, too.

I never had an OE corrupt database yet. Nor would it be a big deal if I
ever did. I have so many working copies anyway. Same is true of my other
database files. Heck I can't even compact on one EeePC with a 4GB SSD
soldered on the motherboard. There just isn't enough room to do so. So I
have to either delete the database and rebuild from the servers, or move
the database to another machine and do it there. Can't install SP3 on
that machine either. As you need 1.5GB free to do so. Right, like that
will ever happen on a 4GB drive!

 

[BillW50]

In Bruce Hagen typed:

Defragging and compacting are apples and oranges.

Say your Inbox.dbx file is 600MB and you delete 500MB of messages. Is
the Inbox.dbx file now 100MB? No! It is still 600MB until you compact

Yes of course! Not a problem on a 120GB drive.

and the DBX files have a 2GB capacity before everything is wiped out.

No, supposedly only the Inbox has a 2GB limit. My Inbox is only 826kb in
size and I don't really use it for anything. My largest folder is this
newsgroup being 530MB in size.

If you have never experienced lost messages, you obviously are
compacting but choose not to admit it.

I have created special folders that I haven't used in years. I could
delete them I guess, but the modified time stamp has the date of the
last time this one was compacted. And that was 4/5/2012. And no, I don't
experience lost messages either.

Why does OE insist on compacting folders when I close it?:
http://www.insideoe.com/faqs/why.htm#compact

Yes well... I have a reg file to fix that problem.

 

[Bruce Hagen]

In Bruce Hagen typed:

Yes of course! Not a problem on a 120GB drive.


No, supposedly only the Inbox has a 2GB limit. My Inbox is only 826kb in
size and I don't really use it for anything. My largest folder is this
newsgroup being 530MB in size.


I have created special folders that I haven't used in years. I could
delete them I guess, but the modified time stamp has the date of the last
time this one was compacted. And that was 4/5/2012. And no, I don't
experience lost messages either.


Yes well... I have a reg file to fix that problem.

The size of your hard drive is not relevant.

All folders have a 2GB limit. As far as the local folders you created, if
you are not deleting messages from them, compacting those folders isn't
necessary. The Inbox gets accessed the most and that is the reason it needs
compacting the most.

The dbx files for newsgroups only mirror what is on the server which is also
why they don't import & export.

 

[BillW50]

Bruce Hagen laid this down on his screen :

The size of your hard drive is not relevant.

True, as OE was designed when drives were only labeled in MB.

All folders have a 2GB limit. As far as the local folders you created, if you
are not deleting messages from them, compacting those folders isn't
necessary. The Inbox gets accessed the most and that is the reason it needs
compacting the most.

True and I don't use the Inbox for anything really. Nothing goes in
there. And since my largest folders are only 500MB (even not
compacted), it makes perfect sense why I don't suffer from OE
corruption.

The dbx files for newsgroups only mirror what is on the server which is also
why they don't import & export.

My email uses MAPI and uses their own folders. They also mirror the
server and that is why if I read, delete, move, or flag a message on
one machine, they happen on all of my other machines and all stay in
sync. Pretty much the same idea as cloud computing before it was called
cloud computing.