SP2 and XP

[Tony]

Hi Joe
read some of the SP2 for XP problems are having... Down below main article...

http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/19129/19129.html

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Interesting and very old article about Windows 2000!

Most stories about SP-2 problems neglect to say the problems could
have been prevented:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

 

[Don Taylor]

Interesting and very old article about Windows 2000!

Most stories about SP-2 problems neglect to say the problems could
have been prevented:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

And if we believe all the claims here then Microsoft could have
easily prevented most of them with a simple virus/spyware scan.

What kind of idiot would release a huge upgrade for the specific
purpose of dealing with hundreds of gaping security holes that
were responsible for millions of machines having been compromised
by viruses and spyware AND NOT PRESUME THIS UPGRADE WAS GOING TO FIND
IT WAS BEING INSTALLED ON EXACTLY MACHINES THAT WERE COMPROMISED?!?!?!

What the hell were they thinking? Or not thinking?

 

[Ron Bogart]

In

And if we believe all the claims here then Microsoft could have
easily prevented most of them with a simple virus/spyware scan.

What kind of idiot would release a huge upgrade for the specific
purpose of dealing with hundreds of gaping security holes that
were responsible for millions of machines having been compromised
by viruses and spyware AND NOT PRESUME THIS UPGRADE WAS GOING TO FIND
IT WAS BEING INSTALLED ON EXACTLY MACHINES THAT WERE COMPROMISED?!?!?!

What the hell were they thinking? Or not thinking?

Actually, they put out tons of information related to cleaning up your
system and preparatory steps to take. How could the general public be so
remiss with their data, games and valuable data? Reading the newspaper
finds a ton of information about what is going wrong with the world today -
good information doesn't seem to post all that often. Same thing with
issues with Windows XP - the ugly gets way more press. People say they see
all these posts in the NG's about all the issues - but almost nobody comes
to the newsgroups to post their success.
Take time to think about what is going on around you - perform preventative
maintenance on your computer as it is a valuable tool. If yours is a toy -
then you have no reason to complain if it messes up as it never was meant to
be of any value.

 

[Don Taylor]

In

Actually, they put out tons of information related to cleaning up your
system and preparatory steps to take. How could the general public be so
remiss with their data, games and valuable data?

Perhaps because it is not at all obvious that anything is wrong.
Lots of people have come here saying their systems were working
just fine for them until SP2 was installed, that there was not
any visible hint that anything was wrong with them.

Reading the newspaper
finds a ton of information about what is going wrong with the world today -
good information doesn't seem to post all that often. Same thing with
issues with Windows XP - the ugly gets way more press. People say they see
all these posts in the NG's about all the issues - but almost nobody comes
to the newsgroups to post their success.

Not really true, we see people again and again come to the newsgroup and
post "Worked fine for me" or "Worked fine for me, if it didn't for you
then it is all your fault and you are a stupid idiot."

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Microsoft is not in the business of spyware and virus scans.
Those are the responsibility of the user, same as routine maintenance
on your automobile.

There is a tremendous amount of information at Microsoft's site about
safely protecting your computer.
There is also a tremendous amount of information in other websites and
other media.

Perhaps Microsoft should have done some sort of test, but the fact is,
that is not what Microsoft does and users may be led to a false sense
of security by a program that may not get it all.

You MUST keep your computer safe and secure at ALL times, not just
during an upgrade.
This is nothing new, it just becomes more obvious with an update as
large as a service pack where a large % of problems are caused by
viruses, spyware and other preexisting problems.
That is one of the many reasons people need to take responsibility for
the safety and security of their computers.

Keeping a computer secure from viruses and spyware is relatively easy
and has been for quite some time with or without a Service Pack.

As for "responsible for millions of machines having been compromised"?
Do you mean solely responsible?
Are you suggesting the users have no responsibility at all even though
cheap or free tools are and have been easily available to prevent
spyware and viruses?
Are you suggesting the computer sellers have no responsibility at all
to assist the buyers in learning safe computing?
Mighty convenient when you can blame one big guy when there clearly
are others to share blame.
Why do you ignore that?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Don;
Please post the source of this item you quoted:
"Worked fine for me, if it didn't for you then it is all your fault
and you are a stupid idiot."

 

[Don Taylor]

Perhaps Microsoft should have done some sort of test, but the fact is,
that is not what Microsoft does and users may be led to a false sense
of security by a program that may not get it all.

To quote the oft said statement here, "Nothing is perfect" which is
then used as some sort of claim that you can't criticize it no matter
how bad it is.

But, more to the point, strictly from a point of public image and
wanting to appear to be the good guys, it dumbfounds me that they
didn't take into account SP2 running into exactly the problems that
it was written to protect against in the future.

Keeping a computer secure from viruses and spyware is relatively easy
and has been for quite some time with or without a Service Pack.

Actually, I think if it were that easy for users to protect their
computers from attack then you would have to ask why they spent the
supposed billions of dollars to create SP2.

As for "responsible for millions of machines having been compromised"?
Do you mean solely responsible?

Pretty much. Look at the number of massive security holes they have
had open for decades. Just as one example, consider the person who
must have been responsible for allowing any of two dozen different
file extensions all be happily treated as executable, even if the
contents of the file didn't match the extension. How many attacks
have used that wonderful little feature, and the list of extenstions
to open up even more holes just keeps growing, The list goes on
and on and on...

Are you suggesting the users have no responsibility at all even though
cheap or free tools are and have been easily available to prevent
spyware and viruses?

Had massive f&&kups in security not been the standard for decades
I think you could make a case that there wouldn't BE viruses or
spyware.

Are you suggesting the computer sellers have no responsibility at all
to assist the buyers in learning safe computing?

Actually we could include computer manufacturers. I've said for fifteen
years that if Windows didn't make it almost impossible to do it would
be the greatest little toy to have vast parts of windows installed behind
a "fence" on the drive where it was physically impossible for that part
of the drive to be written on without manually switching "the big red
switch" and the architecture of Windows could have supported needing to
do that perhaps once a year for a few minutes under controlled conditions.

But, everybody in this game is in the business of writing up EULA that
explicitly demand that you agree NOTHING is their fault, no matter what
happens, with Microsoft and software companies at the top of that list.
Everybody is pointing fingers at someone else, nobody wants to be
responsible, that doesn't make a profit.

Mighty convenient when you can blame one big guy when there clearly
are others to share blame.
Why do you ignore that?

Mostly because after decades of denying this Microsoft finally didn't
really come out and admit that their reputation was being flushed
down the toilet by weekly worldwide announcements that someone had
found a NEW way of hijacking Windows, but that they spent billions
of dollars, without-admitting-they-ever-did-anything-wrong to fix this.
And it seems really likely that they wanted to come out of this looking
like the good guys for a change. Which again asks the question, why
didn't they do these simple non-rocket-science things which it has
been claimed again and again are the reason for all the problems seen?

 

[Don Taylor]

Don;
Please post the source of this item you quoted:
"Worked fine for me, if it didn't for you then it is all your fault
and you are a stupid idiot."

You asked for it. It will take me a bit of time to collect a few hundred
of them and put them into a message for you. I'll try to include the one
who said "if sp2 destroys the compters of some of these people... well that
won't be a bad thing." I really liked that one.

Now I'll have to go use google to collect up some of these that you
asked for. Perhaps 500 or maybe even 1000 lines of them be enough?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Don;
Write your own OS to the specs you think is reasonable.
Be sure it is 100% secure under all conditions since you seem to think
the users have no responsibility at all.
Further you must make it secure for the indefinite future.
It is not relevant that technology and/or further knowledge could
eventually find a weakness since it is 100% the responsibility of the
OS manufacturer (you).

Now go back a bit...
Whose fault were the worms Sasser and Blaster last year?
You would seem to suggest 100% Microsoft.
But since your perfect OS will have no problems, I can see how you
might believe it.