SP2 really needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erich Schaetti
  • Start date Start date
E

Erich Schaetti

hi folks

there's lot's of gossiping around that SP2 for Windows XP is causing much more trouble than it would be of any improvements! there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec for example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-firewall. can anybody reaffirm this statement or did i just misunderstand the
symantec statement. from my actual point of view i'll better wait with SP2 til i see the whole impact on all updated systems all
over the world. sure there will be much troubleshooting in this group to happen, anybody bets?

greetings
erich
 
symantec in my opinion is not that good any way. but yes
ther r a lot of probs with this sp2 and i think u would
be fool hardy 2 download it yet .
like every thing it will take microsoft a little while 2
iron out the bugs.if it ain't broke don't fix it
-----Original Message-----
hi folks

there's lot's of gossiping around that SP2 for Windows
Click to expand...
XP is causing much more trouble than it would be of any
improvements! there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having
Click to expand...
difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec for
example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-
Click to expand...
firewall. can anybody reaffirm this statement or did i
just misunderstand the
symantec statement. from my actual point of view i'll
Click to expand...
better wait with SP2 til i see the whole impact on all
updated systems all
over the world. sure there will be much troubleshooting
Click to expand...
in this group to happen, anybody bets?
 
symantec in my opinion is not that good any way. but yes
ther r a lot of probs with this sp2 and i think u would
be fool hardy 2 download it yet .
like every thing it will take microsoft a little while 2
iron out the bugs.if it ain't broke don't fix it
XP is causing much more trouble than it would be of any
improvements! there
difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec for
example is telling on their
firewall. can anybody reaffirm this statement or did i
just misunderstand the
better wait with SP2 til i see the whole impact on all
updated systems all
in this group to happen, anybody bets?
Click to expand...

I just updated and no problems. i have mcafee going and it said either it
needs to be the security set up or windows is, so i said usre mcafee. things
are fine. but with ms its firewall is on now, i never need it anyeway cus im
behind a good business class zyxel router. but so far things are fine for
me.
 
Erich Schaetti said:
hi folks

there's lot's of gossiping around that SP2 for Windows XP is causing much
more trouble than it would be of any improvements! there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having difficulties copying with
the new patch. symantec for example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-firewall. can anybody
reaffirm this statement or did i just misunderstand the
symantec statement. from my actual point of view i'll better wait with SP2
til i see the whole impact on all updated systems all
over the world. sure there will be much troubleshooting in this group to
happen, anybody bets?

greetings
erich
Click to expand...

Yes, SP2 is really needed. First of all, it contains many bugfixes for XP
and this alone would be a good enough reason to download and install it. It
also contains the much touted security improvements, which will make it much
more difficult for viruses, malware, etc. to become a problem on your
computer. XP SP2 is now the official version of XP and any further updates
of XP will be based on it. This means that most or all of the future updates
for XP will not be installed unless you have SP2. History has shown that the
computers most susceptible to future problems from attacks are those that
are not updated.

I am sure you have completely misinterpreted some statement to Symantec's
site. I can find not statement as you described. They may have said that the
new Windows XP firewall does not need to be activated if you have Norton
Firewall, but not that SP2 is not necessary.

You should determine whether or not you have the Pentium 4 Prescott
processor. This processor needs a BIOS upgrade before you can install SP2.

Of course, you should determine whether or not the apps you use are affected
by SP2. If they are, you should be ready to whatever changes are necessary,
with reconfiguration or updates. You may have to wait for updates.

Before you install SP2, look here:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm and follow their procedure. This
will go as far as possible to insure a problem free install of SP2.
Remember, it is highly unlikely that if your install of XP has severe
problems now that installing SP2 will make them better.

One of the other posters made the comment "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Current perception is that Windows XP is broke. Particularly in the area of
security. This has been a constant topic of conversation on newsgroups like
grc.security and microsoft.public.security and in the press. It is also true
despite the fact that application programs run without problems. SP2 goes a
long way to fixing these security problems, and is worth the risk of
possibly breaking some current programs to make this fix. Just like
basically all major operating system upgrades things will be better in the
long run.

At this point, however, the question is not whether XP SP2 is necessary, or
whether to install it, but when is the right time to install it.

Hope this helps.

Dick Kistler
 
Erich Schaetti said:
hi folks

there's lot's of gossiping around that SP2 for Windows XP is causing much more trouble than it would be of any improvements! there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec for example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-firewall. can anybody reaffirm this statement or did i just misunderstand the
symantec statement. from my actual point of view i'll better wait with SP2 til i see the whole impact on all updated systems all
over the world. sure there will be much troubleshooting in this group to happen, anybody bets?

greetings
erich
Click to expand...

When you're offered SP2, my advice is: Do nothing; wait a bit.

SP2 is huge--- so big it's almost a whole new version of XP. Like any new
version of any OS, it *will* contain bugs, and it *will* cause trouble on
some setups. The more complex and/or nonstandard your setup is, the greater
the likelihood of a problem.

Plus, there's no "must have right now" element to SP2: Much of SP2 is
designed to force uninformed (or just plain lazy!) PC users to use basic
security--- to stay current with updates, to use a firewall, etc. (These are
the users running the unpatched/unprotected systems that allow most
worms/viruses to spread.)

But odds are, if you're reading this newsletter, you already know about and
are using pretty good security practices, such as good firewall, antivirus
and anti-spyware tools, and you're keeping up to date with Critical Updates.
If that's the case, you won't gain a lot by rushing into SP2.

Instead, wait a bit--- even as much as a month or two--- to let the worst
problems with SP2 come to light and be fixed on other user's PCs.

Again, as long as you're already using the kinds of security tools and
techniques we discuss in this newsletter every week (example:
http://www.informationweek.com/840/langa.htm ), there's no need to rush into
SP2.

I'm not the only one suggesting this "go slow" approach. See, for example
these other authors:
http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/60.htm
http://channelzone.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,1759,1633858,00.asp
 
I wouldn't go so far as saying your advice is bad simply you are badly
informed and are passing on others advice like a parrot.

Do you know if there are inherent problems with SP2? I have not yet seen a
single problem that has been identified from a credible source, have you?

The upgrade has already been tested extensively. The so called problem with
certain third party programs seem very much a non issue, at least I have not
yet seen any reports of problems that are attributable to SP2 with 'main'
stream programs that have been maintained up to date. There may well be
problems with programs that have not been maintained. I had a 'hiccup' with
my Firewall but downloading and installing the latest build fixed that.

The biggest 'problem' seems to be with the BIOS of the Prescott Processor
but you can wait as long as you like but this is an Intel problem not one
that MS can or will fix.
 
You will have to decide for yourself. Don't be fooled by those who tell
you the world will end if you don't install SP2. And yes, there are known issues
with SP2. There are with every Windows service pack. You will have to wade
through the many issues to see if you will be affected.

Personally, I will wait. I have a good firewall, antivirus, spyware cleaners
and email protection, and I keep them all up to date. I also make sure to install the
constant stream of patches from MS.
I have not had any problems through all of the virus/malware/spyware outbreaks
that have been going on for the last year or so. I do spend a lot of time on
the Internet and use quite a bit of email and have not been infected, so I feel reasonably safe.

The only problem I might have is if there is a critical update from MS I need to install,
that requires SP2. That will eventually happen, and I will have to address the issue then.
For now though, I am waiting.

Like I said, the decision is yours.



Erich Schaetti said:
hi folks

there's lot's of gossiping around that SP2 for Windows XP is causing much more trouble than it
Click to expand...
would be of any improvements! there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec
Click to expand...
for example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-firewall. can anybody reaffirm this statement
Click to expand...
or did i just misunderstand the
symantec statement. from my actual point of view i'll better wait with SP2 til i see the whole
Click to expand...
impact on all updated systems all
 
Erich said:
there
is a list of over 600 programms, that are having difficulties copying with the new patch. symantec for example is telling on their
site, that SP2 is not a need when having a symantec-firewall.
Click to expand...

Symantec have a vested interest in people using their product. There is
more to SP2 than just the firewall. But the 'problems' that are
mentioned are almost all a need for a small change to the use of the
program so as to use it from behind a firewall at all.
 
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:27:29 +0100, "Edward W. Thompson"
Do you know if there are inherent problems with SP2?
Yes.

I have not yet seen a single problem that has been identified from
a credible source, have you?
Click to expand...

Try http//cquirke.mvps.org/sp2intel.htm on a very specific problem
that is way beyond one or two apps not working. If your PC is at
risk, then this applies; else not. How to tell, how to get out if
your'e affected, why this happens etc. is all there.
The biggest 'problem' seems to be with the BIOS of the Prescott Processor
but you can wait as long as you like but this is an Intel problem not one
that MS can or will fix.
Click to expand...

That's the problem I'm referring to - and it doesn't matter who you
blame, your PC is just as dead. Here's the state chart:

Pre-SP2 SP2

Fine Fine BIOS that pushes microcode to rev 8+
Fine Dead BIOS that doesn't

Several vendors don't, even in the very latest BIOS revs.


-------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
"I think it's time we took our
friendship to the next level"
'What, gender roles and abuse?'
 
dear dick

many thanks for your profound excursion about the pros of SP2 update. your comment among many others was most objective and
helpful. anyway, i read myself into the materia and i've found out, that microsoft was trying hard to fix security leaks by
implementing finally a firewall with some basic functions (but securing imbound traffic only is not enough!*) and they gave
Explorer some security enhancements (whatever this means...with the result that i cannot preview ssi-files on IE no more f.e.).
known for their 'success' to fail in stuffing leaks in the past AND presence (read this:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/50467 (in german) ), everybody is asked to continue using a third party product that WORKS
without weekly hotfixes and repatches on and on (no wonder IE is getting literally under heavy fire from other competitors). maybe
some people even think, now that they have a microsoft-firewall they don't need no anti-virus assistance no more. but they are
wrong. it is an absolute must to have a separate filter helping out. when looking through the threads in here i found out, that
SP2 is causing quite an uproar among people who like to have a working product. somewhere in here i also read, that
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general would be kind of hospital only and cannot represent the thousands of satisfied XP users. just
let me say this: the ones in here claiming trouble are the top of the iceberg only!

(*source Symantec:"The Windows Firewall is designed to monitor and control inbound network traffic only. It does not provide
outbound traffic protection, intrusion detection and response, or privacy controls -- all critical to securing your computer from
outside attacks.")

once more many thanks for the echo out there and especially to Dick Kistler (sounds swiss?!)

bye
erich schaetti
 
Back
Top