the big question: is it worth upgrading to SP2?

lukeh182

Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
616
so my question is obviously posed in the subject. is it worth going to sp2 now or is it better to wait untill some of the bugs have been worked out? so far i haven't seen a whole lot of good come out of sp2, but i haven't done much reading. so what is the recomendation?
 

mosin

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
6,558
I upgraded, and then downgraded. :D
SP2 didn't cut it on my rig.

Your mileage may vary. ;)
 

Badger_sly

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 20, 2002
Messages
1,594
I saw yes.

I noticed an increase in performance in games when I installed SP2 beta. The popup blocker is worth it's weight in gold, IMO. Then I went to the official SP2 and the benefits remained. And I've not had a single problem.
 

djnes

Fully [H]
Joined
Mar 24, 2000
Messages
19,560
I can't believe people are still asking this question! Of course it is worth it. Oh how I can't wait until the next major worm comes out and all these people post asking how to get rid of it. And those who have SP2 can just laugh and say "What worm?".
 

Phoenix86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
6,653
djnes said:
I can't believe people are still asking this question! Of course it is worth it. Oh how I can't wait until the next major worm comes out and all these people post asking how to get rid of it. And those who have SP2 can just laugh and say "What worm?".
No you got it wrong, they will be posting hundreds of 'my computer is doing XYZ, WTF?' threads and we will have to sort them out. :rolleyes:

Seriously, make a restore point, check your 3rd party software for SP2 updates, and go for it.

90% of SP2 problems are a 3rd party software problem (vendor didn't test with SP2 pre-releases) or a firewall config issue (user didn't config it).
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,718
so far i haven't seen a whole lot of good come out of sp2, but i haven't done much reading.
Well why don't you read up on it then?

I think due to the security initiatives taken with SP2 (for better or worse), that developers are going to design around it so whatever problems exist now in 3rd party apps won't exist much longer.
 

Tordek

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
1,765
Ive tried and tested sp2 and found it of my liking... Cleanest machines ive ever installed...

For me, the best thing i have obtained from sp2 (besides the firewall) is how much good drivers it comes with. I have to do a lot format and install for internet machines, some with very old hardware and sp2 has made my driver googling a thing of the past....
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,042
I just got the SP2 disk from M$, I will be installing it on this machine (my fathers Dell) tonight, here is my question, I am building myself a comp. and am wondering when to install it. Do it before I start installing 3rd party stuff or after? Before or after windows updates? Before or after doing some stress testing?
 

Phoenix86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
6,653
Slipstream the SP2 into your XP and make a new install disk. It will install with SP2 during the base install. Do a search for autostreamer, which will automate the slipstream process.
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
ninethreeeleven said:
I just got the SP2 disk from M$, I will be installing it on this machine (my fathers Dell) tonight, here is my question, I am building myself a comp. and am wondering when to install it. Do it before I start installing 3rd party stuff or after? Before or after windows updates? Before or after doing some stress testing?
Do it before getting any cookies or spyware-esque crap built up in your temp internet folders, and best to install it before installing too many miscellaneous programs. However, with the programs you use often, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but a restore point is helpful.

Oh, and about the ghey dollar sign crap: grow the hell up.


Phoenix86 said:
90% of SP2 problems are a 3rd party software problem (vendor didn't test with SP2 pre-releases) or a firewall config issue (user didn't config it).
And the other 10% is spyware/malware, viruses, or people using "tweaks" like disabled services or other questionable practices.
 

Steel Chicken

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,798
I dont use XP much, but I have been using a Window 2000 system with SP4 ONLY installed, no updates, no security patches. I have had zero problems with virus and worms. Why? Because I dont install something I dont trust, I dont use IE, and I dont use Outlook. Adding a good Virus detector and a firewall program, and im done.

The whole concept that installing "such and such" patch or service pack from M$ will make your puter safe is ludicrous...sooner or later some wanker will figure a way around it.
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
This is really fucking ridiculous. If you have to use a dollar sign when abbreviating Microsoft, then you've already lost the argument because you've displayed that you have lost the ability to use a reasonable argument to make your case instead of insipid annoyances.
 

mosin

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
6,558
GreNME said:
This is really fucking ridiculous. If you have to use a dollar sign when abbreviating Microsoft, then you've already lost the argument because you've displayed that you have lost the ability to use a reasonable argument to make your case instead of insipid annoyances.
I suppose the same could be said of those who use the word "ghey" in their posts, or depend on crap, hell and fucking to make their point. :rolleyes:

Regardless, Microsoft service packs and critical updates aren't the answer for computer security. Those answers have always come from third parties, and I believe that they always will. I have never lulled myself into believing that Microsoft can protect my machine. I know what it takes to make my rig secure, and SP2 isn't it. It may help some casual users, but it is not a cure.

Additionally, SP2 adds more than security changes to a computer. It also adds frills that some people do not want. Unfortunately, Microsoft allows for no user decision in the matter. The choice of a custom install with more flexibility would have been nice, but I suppose that's asking too much. :rolleyes:
 
I

Ice Czar

Guest
djnes said:
I can't believe people are still asking this question! Of course it is worth it. Oh how I can't wait until the next major worm comes out and all these people post asking how to get rid of it. And those who have SP2 can just laugh and say "What worm?".

well there is more than one way to skin a cat
Ive never caught a worm, but then I pay attention to what is going on in the wild and keep up to date with hotfixes, you dont necessarilly need to apply all the components of a service pack, which is why they are seperately available

however, I would say that eventually you would want to sort out SP2 on your box
either using it as a whole
disabling parts of it (like the firewall, using a different one) or
selecting component hotfixes to install that are incorporated in SP2

specific patches are a critical components in your defense
but as mentioned, you need to configre and employ 3rd party aps im a layered defense as well
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
mosin said:
I suppose the same could be said of those who use the word "ghey" in their posts, or depend on crap, hell and fucking to make their point.

Regardless, Microsoft service packs and critical updates aren't the answer for computer security. Those answers have always come from third parties, and I believe that they always will. I have never lulled myself into believing that Microsoft can protect my machine. I know what it takes to make my rig secure, and SP2 isn't it. It may help some casual users, but it is not a cure.

Additionally, SP2 adds more than security changes to a computer. It also adds frills that some people do not want. Unfortunately, Microsoft allows for no user decision in the matter. The choice of a custom install with more flexibility would have been nice, but I suppose that's asking too much.
No, because I am stating that using attacks is ghey, stupid, insipid, and weak. I am not making fun of anyone's name. Instead, I'm stating that if you have to resort to using the dollar sign, you've already admitted that you aren't willing to actually discuss at all, and are instead at the level of paranoia and disconnect that is depicted in the Penny Arcade cartoon.

Let's not even get into the weak-ass straw man argument you guys are making about SP2 not being a cure, since no one said that. Instead, they were saying how SP2 is more protected from these types of attacks. They were complaining how too many people put security updates off to the point where they set themselves up for attacks. They were complaining how many infections could have easily been avoided by simple regular patching and the default settings in SP2. When you decide you want to come back and argue that, then you will have a point. As it stands, you have no point.

But I'm glad for you that you have not been infected. Good for you, your dick must be really huge.
 

Steel Chicken

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,798
Lol, thats funny. That's also very convienent for you...simply ignore someones argument because they used a very *common* abbreviation for Microsoft. Saves on the typing does it?

I dont hate M$, they make some good stuff. But i would be a fool if I thought I could trust them to keep my computer safe. If you choose to ignore my whole point because one simple character...more power to you. Put your head in the sand and ignore the reality of the world we live in.

The bottom line in, with the current state of the internet, spam and worms galore, script kiddies and hackers...people who rely on M$ or their products *alone* have a much higher chance of having security based problems. If you cannot see this, you are blind.

from the mouth of M$ themselves:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/view.html?pg=3

"Seems like you're fighting a losing battle.
It's not a switch that can be flipped. Software written by humans will always contain errors. We're fundamentally changing the way things operate, to help to make software more resistant to attacks. We're two and a half years down a much longer road; it's more of a 10-year timeline."

While M$ takes 10 years to make their OS and software secure, ill rely on myself and 3-rd party products, thank you.
 
I

Ice Czar

Guest
GreNME said:
They were complaining how too many people put security updates off to the point where they set themselves up for attacks..

exactly what happened to me on my primary W2K install with a hotfix earlier this year
it had "issues" with some installs and I held off till eventually I got exploited
luckily it was a minor exploit and my registry monitor alerted me to it immediately
so I manually removed it, and then installed the hotfix

which promptly busted my install :p

then I tried to fix it without instructions, and promptly killed my install :p

the next day the manual fix was released (manual uninstall and repair)

4 days later the updated hotfix :rolleyes:
 

Howdy

n00b
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
52
Do not upgrade to SP2 you might as well like a super virus go to town on your pc.

After installing Sp2, the craziest thing happend..........it not only upgrades your amazing version of windows xp but man this is great it also REFORMATS YOUR HARDDRIVE!!!!

I swear to god i have never been this pissed off at microsoft for such a p.o.s
Lesson here, don't upgrade windows if it works.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,042
GreNME said:
Oh, and about the ghey dollar sign crap: grow the hell up.

I never use that but I didn't feel like spelling out Microsoft, and when I write MS it, to me, means multiple sclerosis since my sister works in a daycare for MS kids. I'll steer clear of it, as usual. Also I have no idea what the guy in the cartoon is saying, I have never watched StarTrek and none of it makes sense to me.
 

Sean

[H] for Life
Joined
Nov 16, 2000
Messages
5,283
GreNME said:
No, because I am stating that using attacks is ghey, stupid, insipid, and weak. I am not making fun of anyone's name. Instead, I'm stating that if you have to resort to using the dollar sign, you've already admitted that you aren't willing to actually discuss at all, and are instead at the level of paranoia and disconnect that is depicted in the Penny Arcade cartoon.

Let's not even get into the weak-ass straw man argument you guys are making about SP2 not being a cure, since no one said that. Instead, they were saying how SP2 is more protected from these types of attacks. They were complaining how too many people put security updates off to the point where they set themselves up for attacks. They were complaining how many infections could have easily been avoided by simple regular patching and the default settings in SP2. When you decide you want to come back and argue that, then you will have a point. As it stands, you have no point.

But I'm glad for you that you have not been infected. Good for you, your dick must be really huge.

You really had me on your side for a bit, but you degraded your statement in your last 6 words. Don't lower your self to that level! I know it bugs the crap out of you, but you have to be better composed. :cool:

Cheers,
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
Lol, thats funny. That's also very convienent for you...simply ignore someones argument because they used a very *common* abbreviation for Microsoft. Saves on the typing does it?
Get back to me when you actually address an argument that has been made by someone else, instead of fabricated by your imagination.

In other words: no one claimed it is a cure.

So, are you going to say that a firewall—which is now default in SP2—is not something that is worthwhile to stem virus and exploit attacks? Can you seriously, using real logic and an intelligent argument based on real information, argue that a firewall is not better than no firewall?

Are you saying that making people confirm before allowing some script or embedded media on a webpage installs itself is not a good thing? What a double-standard—when they allow instant background installation, they're the devil; when they take instant background installations away, they are still the devil. Provide actual proof that this is a bad thing or grow the hell up.

Since SP2 actually checks for a 3rd party antivirus with its Security Center and advises the user to use one, your argument about using Microsoft alone falls pretty damned flat. The SP2 Security Center itself recommends a third party antivirus, since Windows does not come with antivirus. Too bad you didn't think of that when imagining your little straw man.

I would simply love to hear the inane reasoning behind the popup blocking in SP2 being anything but a good thing for the typical end user. I would especially like to hear it because one of the largest gripes up `till SP2 was IE's inherent lack of a popup blocker. All of the sudden, steps taken in the right direction are bad?

So, to sum up, when you can post on a thread actually addressing what others have said instead of making up your own delusional straw man argument, then maybe I'll show you just how much I can type in response to your uninformed and wholly ignorant opinion. In addition, I can even guarantee you that when you finally do, I will not be the only one to point out your rhetorical inconsistencies and logical fallacies, as there are plenty of informed and bright individuals here who, even when they disagree with me, can do so in an intelligent and cogent manner that doesn't need to devolve into dick-measuring matches. When you can provide that level of intelligent discourse and topic-based exchange, perhaps then you will actually be addressed as someone who has an opinion based on something in reality.

In other words, if you want to be treated intelligently, learn to post intelligently.
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
ninethreeeleven said:
I never use that but I didn't feel like spelling out Microsoft, and when I write MS it, to me, means multiple sclerosis since my sister works in a daycare for MS kids. I'll steer clear of it, as usual. Also I have no idea what the guy in the cartoon is saying, I have never watched StarTrek and none of it makes sense to me.
Fair enough. Basically, the idea is that using the dollar sign displays a disconnect from the actual reality of Microsoft software as a product, and instead is focusing on another aspect of the company and taking it personally. Once this happens, on average, reasonable discussion of the software instead of the company tends to disappear. In the case of the cartoon, it's just a caricature of that disconnect taken to the extreme.

I would suggest that, when abbreviating, use Microsoft's stock ticker abbreviation: MSFT. It is pretty recognizable, and doesn't take a whole lot more effort to do. :)
 

Sean

[H] for Life
Joined
Nov 16, 2000
Messages
5,283
Some of these responses are really funny. SP2 doesn't HOSE your system or KILL your install, or FORMATS YOUR HARDDRIVE. Its there to help. Most people here are not running a standard setup, and our software/hardware configurations are very different. I reformated my PC when I installed SP2. I did it to start fresh with a new OS install. For a bit there I couldn't get my email with outlook. I though it was SP2, so I reformated. It was still there. OK, I did a bit more investigation and it was my router. I forgot to change back a setting, and it then worked.

SP2 isn't always the Cause. Sometimes its incompatable hardware or software that might be the problem eh? ;)
 

mosin

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
6,558
GreNME said:
No, because I am stating that using attacks is ghey, stupid, insipid, and weak. I am not making fun of anyone's name. Instead, I'm stating that if you have to resort to using the dollar sign, you've already admitted that you aren't willing to actually discuss at all, and are instead at the level of paranoia and disconnect that is depicted in the Penny Arcade cartoon.

Let's not even get into the weak-ass straw man argument you guys are making about SP2 not being a cure, since no one said that. Instead, they were saying how SP2 is more protected from these types of attacks. They were complaining how too many people put security updates off to the point where they set themselves up for attacks. They were complaining how many infections could have easily been avoided by simple regular patching and the default settings in SP2. When you decide you want to come back and argue that, then you will have a point. As it stands, you have no point.

But I'm glad for you that you have not been infected. Good for you, your dick must be really huge.
Defense rests. :D
 

Steel Chicken

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,798
GreNME said:
Get back to me when you actually address an argument that has been made by someone else, instead of fabricated by your imagination.

In other words: no one claimed it is a cure.

You are a pompous twit. I never said it wasn't a cure. My whole point was if you're really concerned about security dont trust Microsoft to take care of it for you. If you want it done right, do it yourself. For non tech-savvy people, SP2 is an improvement over SP1, no doubt. But, if you handled security yourself correctly in the first place, you won't need it, and you won't have to risk breaking your current setup.

I know you think you're really smart, because you pontificated on and on rebutting arguements I never made. Feel better now?

Oh, for you and any other baby who wants to cry because I like to use the M$ instead of Microsoft, MSFT or anything else, you can kiss my ass. I'll type it any way I feel like it. And if you want to ignore my other arguements because of it fine. Don't bother me one bit. You can even pretend I hate M$ because I spell it like that. You can add pshycic abilites to your resume since you obviously have it all figured out exactly what I think of Microsoft as a company.
 

odoe

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
9,798
People will always find a reason to not to trust MS. Always. The fact that people complained about the lack of functionality in the original XP firewall, no pop-up blocking in IE, and how easy it was to accidentally run a malicious executable...then MS fixes that, makes the improvements, but people still complain.

The fact of the matter is you have a limited time frame to patch your boxes before you won't be able to patch at all. So, either you can go ahead and attempt to make your box more secure with the patches made available to you from the MAKERS of the OS, or you could try to be a rebel and run an unpatched box and put yourself up for risk. The level of risk is totally dependant on your level of Internet "adventurism", but remember, blaster only required for you to connect to the net before you got infected.
 

Steel Chicken

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 29, 2001
Messages
4,798
odoe said:
People will always find a reason to not to trust MS. Always. The fact that people complained about the lack of functionality in the original XP firewall, no pop-up blocking in IE, and how easy it was to accidentally run a malicious executable...then MS fixes that, makes the improvements, but people still complain.

The fact of the matter is you have a limited time frame to patch your boxes before you won't be able to patch at all. So, either you can go ahead and attempt to make your box more secure with the patches made available to you from the MAKERS of the OS, or you could try to be a rebel and run an unpatched box and put yourself up for risk. The level of risk is totally dependant on your level of Internet "adventurism", but remember, blaster only required for you to connect to the net before you got infected.

Some good points.
However, you forget on option...don't run the security weak components...don't run IE. Don't run Outlook. You can block certain ports and turn of the messenger service before you connect to the internet, which should prevent instant infection.

Its not about being a rebel, its about taking the best option. For most people, simply installing SP2 and crossing their fingers is the best option. For someone like me, and my clients, I choose a more through and trustworthy solution. Disable or don't use the functions with the most problems, and use 3rd party tools to plug in gaps. For the forseeable future, this will be a much better solution than using Microsofts. This does not mean I hate M$, or think their products are crap...just that they did not design their core products with security mind, period.
 

odoe

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
9,798
This is a major upgrade. I doubt in a year people will still be saying they are not running SP2.
I would still not rely on MS security for my needs. I run SP2, but still don't like IE or OE. I probably could have stuck using the built-in firewall, but I prefer kerio. After playing with it for while though, it would be fine for most people, even here.

It's not just about the security features in SP2 either.
List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2

You could get the individual fixes for all this and distribute out what you want to clients. I don't do this on a mass basis and maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but it sems to me that it would take more time and effort to deploy the individual patches on an install with seperate security apps than to provide full SP2 with the same security apps.

I'm not trying to argue, you guys are fully within your right to not uprade SP2, but so far I have seen no reason to not upgrade. You're not relying on SP2 to be an all around security fix. No one is expected to stop using 3rd party security, it's a patch.
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
You are a pompous twit. I never said it wasn't a cure. My whole point was if you're really concerned about security dont trust Microsoft to take care of it for you. If you want it done right, do it yourself.
You're still being incredibly ignorant and outright stupid. Not even Microsoft alone is trying to "take care of it for you," which is why your argument is full of horse shit.

For non tech-savvy people, SP2 is an improvement over SP1, no doubt. But, if you handled security yourself correctly in the first place, you won't need it, and you won't have to risk breaking your current setup.
If you think a firewall and A/V checking is all that has been included in SP2, then of course you're going to feel this way. Unfortunately for you, that is an uninformed opinion about what is actually in SP2. Not only has software level prevention of execution (DEP) been included, but the entire kernel has been recompiled using newer and safer calls, making buffer underruns less likely to happen. On top of that, SP2 prevents automatic installation of software, meaning the person has to acknowledge and confirm the installation of software. There are loads of other changes as well, but if you're too lazy to read in the first place, then there's no point in trying to teach you something you don't want to learn when you already think you know it all.

Oh, for you and any other baby who wants to cry because I like to use the M$ instead of Microsoft, MSFT or anything else, you can kiss my ass. I'll type it any way I feel like it. And if you want to ignore my other arguements because of it fine. Don't bother me one bit. You can even pretend I hate M$ because I spell it like that. You can add pshycic abilites to your resume since you obviously have it all figured out exactly what I think of Microsoft as a company.
You're the one making it personal. Get your panties out of the bunch and join the rest of us in the realm of intelligent discourse. You'll feel much better if you do.

However, you forget on option...don't run the security weak components...don't run IE. Don't run Outlook. You can block certain ports and turn of the messenger service before you connect to the internet, which should prevent instant infection.
There is no software out there that allows surfing on the internet with impunity, like you seem to imply. No matter what software you run on any OS, patching is a fact of life. Claiming that using a different software as the answer is not only ignoring the problem, but implying that there is a way to be invulnerable from it. You're really beginning to parade your ignorance around like a badge if you truly believe this.

Disable or don't use the functions with the most problems, and use 3rd party tools to plug in gaps. For the forseeable future, this will be a much better solution than using Microsofts.
Only if you have no real clue about how to use Microsoft's own security measures effectively, which you seem to not have a clue of. Name one tool that you would use to "plug the gaps" instead of a solution either provided directly by Microsoft or that is Microsoft supported. Chances are, you're going to have to look pretty far, since Microsoft has been supporting third-party solutions for many years now, and has not stopped doing so with SP2.

In other words, your implications that third party is the only option because MS isn't good enough is bullshit, since Microsoft makes it a point to not only work with 3rd parties now, but actually supports a great deal of them. So whether using the built-in firewall or ZoneAlarm or Sygate, you are not doing anything Microsoft themselves wouldn't recommend.

SP2 isn't about being the answer to security, it's about making those security features more accessible and configurable to more people.
 

[Tripod]MajorPayne

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
Some of the "security" seems to invasive. The firewall blocked Medal of Honor, the Pacific Assault Demo, MSN Messenger, Call of Duty, and Spybot S&D the first time I ran them. WTF? None of those even use incoming internet connections, like running a server. I'm already behind a NAT-enabled modem and a Linksys Firewall/Router, so I'm about to disable this firewall. Besides, that, everything is cool with SP2, and apparently no problems to speak of.
 

O[H]-Zone

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
1,465
GreNME said:
ignorant...stupid...horse shit...uninformed...lazy...think you know it all... panties out of the bunch...ignorance..have no real clue...not have a clue...
Intelligent discourse?
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
Don't worry, I won't expect it of you. You've already proven incapable.

Honestly, you had to seriously cut up a whole lot of stuff in-between to get that, and it proves nothing except you apparently don't like rated-PG words. My heart bleeds.

Come back when you can actually refute what I said instead of holding a juvenile fixation on expletives.
 

oldpablo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
6,352
Steel Chicken said:
from the mouth of M$ themselves:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/view.html?pg=3

"Seems like you're fighting a losing battle.
It's not a switch that can be flipped. Software written by humans will always contain errors. We're fundamentally changing the way things operate, to help to make software more resistant to attacks. We're two and a half years down a much longer road; it's more of a 10-year timeline."

While M$ takes 10 years to make their OS and software secure, ill rely on myself and 3-rd party products, thank you.

I think you misunderstand that question as well as the answer. The answer is not saying "Yeah we screwed up" its pointing out the incorrect perspective of the question. All software companies are fighting a losing battle to a certain extent, because there is currently no way you can just make some software or an OS that permanently and with a 100% guarantee prevents virus infections and hack attacks. Look at all the flaws that just surfaced for Mac as well as Linux. Since MS designs and refines the windows platform based upon the current and near future market, to think MS takes 10 years to make something right says you aren't understanding exactly what is going here. Did MS design 95 improperly to cope with the computer industry in 2005? The 10 year timeline is the timeline to bring a new computing platform into play (palladium for example). They can't do it now because its not up to them alone, there has to be hardware to match it. Rely on your third party products all you want. Beware the third party products that didn't do their job and modify their software to work properly with SP2, even after all the time they had to test. :) Maybe you shouldn't rely on them either... The only right answer here is the right answer to everything computer related. To trust any software completely without doing your part is wrong. Even grandma should learn how to read the requirements spot on the box and do a little Internet reserach before she buys software. Its up to HER, not MS or any other company. And to not run IE, Outlook, all the other apps that people "think" are security holes... thats the same mentality of going to live in a cave in the mountains because you are worried about WWIII. I have used Outlook for years and years and years and never been infected by it. Outlook is a wonderful program that gets a bad rep along with everything else the M$ fools throw out just because people are stupid or their admins are stupid. I hope you pardon my use of M$, I'm trying to describe a certain type of people out there. If you aren't one of them, you might want to refrain using it like they do. :)
 
I

Ice Czar

Guest
odoe said:
Will you guys stop bickering like school children.

however it is perferable to cussing like sailors :p

but it is treading right on the rule line
thus open to interpretation if you get the hint ;)
 

YoUnAn

Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
736
Was this not the same response people where having when SP1 was released???

I have been using SP2 for 1 1/2 months and I find it to be really nice.
Certain programs run alot faster and smoother.
Internet explorer security has been beefed up.
The new improved firewall is great for users that do not know about firewalls and that they can protect you while surfing the net.(ex. common people who use PC's not people who use this forum)
The security center is a nice feature if you do not know how to maintain and keep you PC safe. But for all us [H] folks I'm sure it can get annoying but remember MS is trying to make a product for the average user not just for certain people.
 
Top