SP2

[kony]

Not hardly. Most real pros want to be running what their customers are
using.

???

Seems very unlikely. They might want at least a box or two
set up with same OS, but that's more like a virus in
isolation, to be studied. I keep a few old ISA NICs around
too, for customers who refuse to upgrade to a modern PC, but
I don't use one myself except in those cases.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

No, that does not solve the problem.

NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.

 

[CBFalconer]

And that advice is reasonable for what percentage of the user base?
Would a real computer pro take that advive?

Yes. He just installs Netscape and is all set.

 

[kony]

NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.

So you're claiming that spyware infestations are down 99% on
systems running SP2? Dream on.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Yes. He just installs Netscape and is all set.

Just NO!

 

[Ron Reaugh]

So you're claiming that spyware infestations are down 99% on
systems running SP2? Dream on.

HUH!

 

[Gojira]

Not flooded. The amount was MUCH less than anticipated. NGs distill the
problems. Most don't come to NGs because SP2 works fine.


There is not the slightest evidence to support that.

Don't know what groups you're looking at,but I've seen hundreds of
complaints. When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
poorly conceived program.You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
or wrong" people. Dismissing all the problems SP2 has caused by blaming the
users helps no one.It shouldn't take a trained professional to install an
update meant for home users as well as businesses.If Windows didn't have so
many vulnerabilities,all these security updates wouldn't be necessary in
the first place.

 

[Skeleton Man]

Hire a professional to help you out.

You're right, 6 years experience as a tech, with a diploma in systems
administration, hardly qualifies me to install a service pack. You're a
moron, plain and simple.

Chris

 

[Noozer]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

In the long run SP2 is a MUST HAVE for the average computer user.

Maybe for the neophyte... SP2 is definately a MUST AVOID for anyone who
actually USES their computer.

 

[Noozer]

The average user doesn't monitor ports, disable services,

NOPE, 99+% of the time IT DOES solve the problem and this solution is
highly diserable in an environment where there's hundreds of thousands of
PCs on the Inet around the world unprotected.

SP2 does NOTHING to solve the problem, which is USERS who haven't got a
clue.

Putting SP2 on an average users computer is the same as giving a helmet to a
driver who hasn't got a license and doesn't know how to drive. It doesn't
protect anyone else and doesn't stop the dumbass from continuing to do dumb
things. All it does is protect the stupid part of the equation.

 

[Noozer]

intermittently, so I turned the firewall off and went back to Zone Alarm

All known weaknesses in your existant environment. SP2 works just fine.
Norton/
Symantec causes problems with everything and most are abandoning it.....

SP2 does NOT work fine. It's a piece of crap.

I've been using Symantec stuff for years and never had a bit of trouble.

Now ZoneAlarm is a different story. BLECH!

 

[Noozer]

OF COURSE there will be.

Only if you actually install SP2 and leave the automatic updates on.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Don't know what groups you're looking at,but I've seen hundreds of
complaints.

So do I. Hundreds is SMALL.

When there's that many problems,I'd say that's evidence of a
poorly conceived program.

NO, this has been the biggest fastest deployment in history of any piece of
software.
SP2 is VERY well conceived.

You seem to be one of those"Microsoft forever,right
or wrong" people.

Nope, I nail MS every time they screw up like the Prescott fiasco in SP2
which they new about in June in RC2 but didn't adress in RTM. That HUGE
snafu affects a microscopic fraction of users.

Dismissing all the problems SP2 has caused by blaming the
users helps no one.
HUH?

It shouldn't take a trained professional to install an
update meant for home users as well as businesses.

Usually that home users was already hopeless infected and in dire need of
professional help. While he's sitting there massively infected he's fouling
the Inet for the rest of us.

If Windows didn't have so
many vulnerabilities,all these security updates wouldn't be necessary in
the first place.

Get a clue....all existent SW has such vulnerabilities including Linux. MS
has been the focus of the hacker freaks because of market percentage...DUH!

MS has gotten serious about security. With SP2's firewall and MS's
Automatic Updates and a good virus scanner and a good spyware checker, one
is in good shape.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

You're right, 6 years experience as a tech,

OH god...a wannabee.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

The above fraud does NOT appear at MS site.

Maybe for the neophyte... SP2 is definately a MUST AVOID for anyone who
actually USES their computer.

WACKO!

 

[Ron Reaugh]

SP2 does NOTHING to solve the problem, which is USERS who haven't got a
clue.

Get a clue. SP2 + Automatic Updates is a powerful combination. Add a good
virus scanner and spyware checker and you're there.

Putting SP2 on an average users computer is the same as giving a helmet to a
driver who hasn't got a license and doesn't know how to drive.

Exactly, we want that driver and the children he has with him wearing
helmets and we want your type out of public sight. Especially because your
type are the ones who let him behind the wheel.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

SP2 does NOT work fine. It's a piece of crap.

WACKO!

 

[kony]

So do I. Hundreds is SMALL.

What about those who only had one system, and had to
reinstall to get it working, thus system FINALLY worked
again, therefore no reason to post for help on usenet
anymore?

NO, this has been the biggest fastest deployment in history of any piece of
software.
SP2 is VERY well conceived.

Biggest OR fastest are desireable?
How about, smallest because little needed patched, or
slowest because such a mammoth SP was extensively tested?

Now, if this were a sweeping change to the core components,
a sweeping overhaul, of OE or IE, that might be a different
story, but it wouldn't have to be HUGE to do that, a few
dozen MB at most.

Nope, I nail MS every time they screw up like the Prescott fiasco in SP2
which they new about in June in RC2 but didn't adress in RTM. That HUGE
snafu affects a microscopic fraction of users.

U nail them every time they sell a copy of windows?
That is screwing up, selling an OS that is SO insecure until
patched. It should've been recalled like a defective
product in any other industry.

HUH?

What could "Hire a professional to help you out." possibly
mean then?

You suggest paying someone to help fix flaws in a product
already paid for. Shouldn't MICROSOFT be the one footing
the bill?

Usually that home users was already hopeless infected and in dire need of
professional help. While he's sitting there massively infected he's fouling
the Inet for the rest of us.

So, due to Microsoft's defective OS, the USER is fouling the
Inet? Nope, the OS is fouling up the Inet, the user is
still a victim, waiting for the OS to work as advertised.

Get a clue....all existent SW has such vulnerabilities including Linux. MS
has been the focus of the hacker freaks because of market percentage...DUH!

Actually, NO!
That is nonsense, an urban myth that it's simply due to
Microsoft's popularity in the market. The _FACT_ is that MS
never made a reasonable effort to secure it, so in addition
to minor bugs, misc. vulnerabilities present in many if not
all OS, there are also holes big enough to drive a truck
though.

Or, let's look at it another way...
Who cares WHY MS is the focus of hacker freaks, when the
bottom line is that you can choose a product that ISN'T the
target of hacker freaks and be more secure?

MS has gotten serious about security.

Wouldn't it be fairer to state that they have gotten serious
about MARKETING security buzzwords?

In the end, they only try to sell more copies of windows.
You have no hope of having a secure OS because they want the
next sale, too. You have taken the bait and are on their
hook but don't even realize it.

With SP2's firewall and MS's
Automatic Updates and a good virus scanner and a good spyware checker, one
is in good shape.

Automatic Updates are great... if you want to have a fully
working system that suddenly stops working without your
"doing" anything in particular.

Bottom line - make regular backups to removable media and
leave a working system alone, rather focusing on secure
computing practices and already-secure apps. Then you have
no need to hope, cross fingers, wave around a chicken or
roll the bones to find out if your system will KEEP working
after MS is done "fixing" it.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

What about those who only had one system, and had to
reinstall to get it working,

A tiny fraction of those that have any problems which is still a small
fraction of users.

thus system FINALLY worked
again, therefore no reason to post for help on usenet
anymore?


Biggest OR fastest are desireable?

In the current Inet security environment, YES!

How about, smallest because little needed patched, or
slowest because such a mammoth SP was extensively tested?

Now, if this were a sweeping change to the core components,
a sweeping overhaul, of OE or IE, that might be a different
story, but it wouldn't have to be HUGE to do that, a few
dozen MB at most.


U nail them every time they sell a copy of windows?
That is screwing up, selling an OS that is SO insecure until
patched. It should've been recalled like a defective
product in any other industry.

Wacko!

 

[Gojira]

A tiny fraction of those that have any problems which is still a small
fraction of users.
piece

In the current Inet security environment, YES!


Wacko!

Now that's an intelligent comeback.It's obvious you're a Bill Gates groupie.
The fact is success has made Microsoft lazy and greedy,they'd rather
concentrate on getting more money from their customers than on producing a
quality product. Is it just a coincidence that SP2 seems to cause problems
with Symantec products,when MSN has a partnership with McAfee? As for the
number of complaints,it might be even higher,if only people affected could
get online to complain.But one of the major flaws of SP2 is apparently that
it screws up your internet connection! Great security strategy,Bill,if
people can't go online,they won't get any viruses!