![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
the big question: is it worth upgrading to SP2?
- Thread starter lukeh182
- Start date
I would be happy for you to point them out to me...one by one with an explanation as to why they are straw. Maybe you can flex those psychic muscles by leaving out your distracting personal comments, so that I can more easily follow the conversation.GreNME said:
Aaaand I quote:mosin said:
No one said they were. People said security was better with SP2, but no one said it was the answer to security. Straw man #1.mosin said:
Same idea, different words. No one claimed it, so you're arguing with imaginary posts. Straw man #2.mosin said:
This one isn't a straw man, but it's utter bullshit. There are no "frills" in SP2 that cannot be easily turned off. When you can list some "frills" that can't be turned off, go ahead and get back to us.mosin said:
So how do you want that crow prepared?
Apparently, you can't stop grasping at straws:
If you run SP1, then you already have things like a firewall and auto update software. The only difference is that they are on by default now. You're crying over a non-issue. Since you're so smart, you should know how to turn it off.mosin said:
No, what was implied was that it was worth it, which was answering the original post's question. You might be of a different opinion, but you backed it up with jack and shit.mosin said:
GreNME said:You tell me, since I don't have it on my SP2 install:
You going to stop grasping at straws yet?
Anyone else turned on by those guys...
Seriously, to whine about SP2 but continue to use XP is hypocrisy pure and simple. You can't have one without the other. You can't have an MS OS without having to install the MS updates. So get over it if you use it. If you refuse to get over it, use something else. But for the love of all thats holy... STFU! (said generally to all M$ people that continue to use M$ operating systems)The correct reply to me (from you), mosin, is "my bad, I misunderstood what was said and made a few incorrect statements. Thanks for clearing it up." Glad to help you out there.
All I can find are measures that mimic pretty much every other update releasethe SP gets phased into the install disks out there, and eventually you won't be able to buy one retail without SP2 preinstalled, just like with SP1. Unlike SP1, MS provided a way for companies to keep auto updates on and still avoid SP2 for a certain amount of time. By all rights, MS is doing what any company would do, which is phase the new release into its production line. I don't see how this is any different than Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, Sun, or Apple.
So, what about the picture is disturbing? Are you imagining things that are not really there? I think you are.
Um, where are you getting your information? The Register? Can you show proof that you'll have no choice but to install?OPUS1 said:This is really moot now isn't it? , in about 6 months apparently you'll have no choice but to SP2 according to Msoft!
Something about that picture is disturbing, I'm not sure if I like it or not
All I can find are measures that mimic pretty much every other update releasethe SP gets phased into the install disks out there, and eventually you won't be able to buy one retail without SP2 preinstalled, just like with SP1. Unlike SP1, MS provided a way for companies to keep auto updates on and still avoid SP2 for a certain amount of time. By all rights, MS is doing what any company would do, which is phase the new release into its production line. I don't see how this is any different than Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, Sun, or Apple.
So, what about the picture is disturbing? Are you imagining things that are not really there? I think you are.
The idea that you don't trust MS is rediculous.
You HAVE TO trust Microsoft, if you are running their OS.
If you don't, there are plenty of other OSes to chose from. If your running a MS OS you, by definition, are trusting MS. Every call can have a buffer overflow exploit, every protocol has a hole, every file system has it's cracks. When you chose to load YOUR DATA on a 3rd party vendors file system, you TRUST that it will keep your files in tact. When you connect YOUR DATA to an internet connection, your TRUSTING MS, and a whole host of 3rd party providers (ISP, manuf. of your firewall/router, etc.).
Since you do trust MS, you also trust them to keep you protected against future attacks. Granted, they may not always protect you, but how many exploits are used BEFORE they are discovered by MS? *waits, listens, and hears crickets* No, no, that just isn't the way things work, the exploits are discovered, they patched, then the exploit is used. Generally (nothing is 100%) if you patch you will be immune to these exploites (blaster, sasser, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?).
So if you run any OS, you are trusting that vendor with YOUR DATA. If the reason you don't patch is, that you no longer trust them, then stop using that OS.
You HAVE TO trust Microsoft, if you are running their OS.
If you don't, there are plenty of other OSes to chose from. If your running a MS OS you, by definition, are trusting MS. Every call can have a buffer overflow exploit, every protocol has a hole, every file system has it's cracks. When you chose to load YOUR DATA on a 3rd party vendors file system, you TRUST that it will keep your files in tact. When you connect YOUR DATA to an internet connection, your TRUSTING MS, and a whole host of 3rd party providers (ISP, manuf. of your firewall/router, etc.).
Since you do trust MS, you also trust them to keep you protected against future attacks. Granted, they may not always protect you, but how many exploits are used BEFORE they are discovered by MS? *waits, listens, and hears crickets* No, no, that just isn't the way things work, the exploits are discovered, they patched, then the exploit is used. Generally (nothing is 100%) if you patch you will be immune to these exploites (blaster, sasser, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?).
So if you run any OS, you are trusting that vendor with YOUR DATA. If the reason you don't patch is, that you no longer trust them, then stop using that OS.
Man, he's freaking me out too!!OldPueblo said:The dude with the hat is looking right at me. Its like he's undressing me with his eyes and can see into my soul...
Psh, sorry. I don't know how to get all quotes in a single post without going back and forth. This is just a quicker way. No, I'm not trying to increase my post count.
Either way, the bottom line is... you can run fine with SP1 for as long as you want. Same goes with SP2. I can run fine with either one. I don't need to rely on 3rd party applications if I can get by with anything I need. I run fine without an anti-virus program.
Either way, SP2 is not harmful. It just brings all the features that people complain about together in one package and that's how I like it. I don't like to install Windows XP THEN install many different programs including FireFox and Sygate and Winamp while SP2 can do all of that for me. That's the statement you'll hear from the average user. Though for the security-conscious people, you'll have applaud MS for their efforts even if some of their features can't rival 3rd party programs. You'll just have to rely on special anti-hole/exploit/vulnerability methods and 3rd party programs.
Now, stfu.
-J.
Either way, the bottom line is... you can run fine with SP1 for as long as you want. Same goes with SP2. I can run fine with either one. I don't need to rely on 3rd party applications if I can get by with anything I need. I run fine without an anti-virus program.
Either way, SP2 is not harmful. It just brings all the features that people complain about together in one package and that's how I like it. I don't like to install Windows XP THEN install many different programs including FireFox and Sygate and Winamp while SP2 can do all of that for me. That's the statement you'll hear from the average user. Though for the security-conscious people, you'll have applaud MS for their efforts even if some of their features can't rival 3rd party programs. You'll just have to rely on special anti-hole/exploit/vulnerability methods and 3rd party programs.
Now, stfu.
-J.
I have to disagree. I use M$ stuff because it makes it easiest do do the things I want to do with a computer. I use mine for surfing, e-mail, games, video editing, and entertainment. I (personal opinion to follow) just don't see any other OS's out there that can do these things as easily as Windows XP.Phoenix86 said:
For example:
I might be able to find a program or group of programs to do all my video editing under Linux. That said, I find it worlds easier to pick up Pinnacle Studio 9 for $49.99, and it does 85-90% of what I need a video editor to do...it captures from DV, detects and breaks up scenes, can assemble video on a timeline, and gives me the ability to bring in audio. But if I want that convenience, speed and support, I'm stuck with M$
But I certainly don't trust M$ 100%, just as I don't trust any large corporation 100%. They don't have MY best interests at heart; they are more concerned with the best interests of their stockholders (which is as it should be...I bought a $100-$150 OS from them...the stockholders have invested millions in the company). By using M$ stuf, I am accepting this, but it doesn't mean I trust them. It means I've accepted the responsibility of being informed; I evaluate what M$ offers, and either use it or don't depending on its utility for me.
Examples:
Windows messenger - When XP came out, messenger was on by default. Then spammers got a hold of it, and I was getting dropped from games so I could consider offers to buy Viagra. So I did some research, found out what messenger does and how to shut it off, and killed it. Then the OS worked better for my purposes. (yes, I know it was disabled in SP2...but there was a long time between my first install of XP and my install of SP2. Was I supposed to put up with the popups until M$ fixed the problem?)
I use a "Game Theater XP" sound card. If I re-install drivers for it, I have to disconnect from the internet, or during the install it will go to windows update, and get drivers that don't work.
For people who don't know (and/or don't want to know) much about computers, I say you're right...trust M$, use their updates and you'll have the best possible experience.
But this is an enthusiast forum...people here are willing and able to tweak things. Isn't it best for my purposes to, instead of leaving the OS in "as installed" condition, to tweak it to suit me?
And if M$ didn't want us to tweak it, why did they make it so we could?
O[H]-Zone said:
Blame Hercules for that. It's the way the write their drivers. If they wanted to make things easier, they would work with MS, much like Creative did with the SBLive cards. You can download a driver from Windows Update that works, but if you want full features, you need the OEM's drivers. Why Hercules refuses to do thi, is beyond me. But, I have an older Fortissimo III card that does the same thing.
The only time I did let it download the driver from windows update it not only wouldn't work with my soundcard, it wouldn't let windows load. I had to boot into safe mode and remove it, then restart, download the driver package from Hercules, and then install it (with the ethernet cable unplugged).djnes said:
Quote from Hercules' website:
"If you are running WINDOWS XP, make sure your network cable is physically disconnected from the computer and remains so until drivers are fully installed. This is to prevent Windows Update from simultaneously upgrading your drivers."
My point is, there is no entity (person, company, group, etc.) that doesn't make mistakes. Also, there is no way for M$ to make an OS that suits everybody perfectly. That's why we tweak.
I see you aren't ignoring me anymore, but it's hasn't helped your ability to make coherent arguments. Regardless, if you install a MS OS, you are trusting them. Tweaking has little to do with anything, unless you don't want other people logging on to your machine.O[H]-Zone said:
Well, your original post said:Phoenix86 said:
You HAVE TO trust Microsoft, if you are running their OS.
But that's not true. I use a M$ OS, and I don't trust them.
Tweaking enters into it because I don't trust M$ to set up my OS in a form that's best for me.
BS. If there was a backdoor to the OS you would be none the wiser, you don't have the source code. Since you do not know, and yet you use it anyways, you are trusting them.O[H]-Zone said:
You just don't want to admit it.
A perfect example of this is the many easter eggs in the OS/products. Flight sim ala excel97 anyone?
The messenger thing was more your ISPs fault for not blocking that port/having their infrastructure setup properly. And to say you use their products but don't trust them is like saying (warning I'm bad at analogies) I don't trust my shabby car to not break down on my eight hour trip, but I'm gonna drive it anyway because....I...uh...trust it not to?
And to say you use their products but don't trust them is like saying (warning I'm bad at analogies) I don't trust my shabby car to not break down on my eight hour trip, but I'm gonna drive it anyway because....I...uh...trust it not to? And once again you twist something someone says into something they did not. He did not say you have to trust them 100 percent. However, trusting them enough that they are not setting out to destroy systems is reasonable. Trusting them that their newer testing and release schemes are based on better (*cough*user-review*cough) models is reasonable. Trusting that you will never, ever, ever have a problem with them is fucking stupid.
SP2 isn't made to be "best for O[H]-Zone's preferences and desires." It is made to cover the basics for the general user base, as wide as possible. The rest is up to the individual. Arguing that a) Microsoft does not try to offer the best for as many of its customers as possible or b) that there has been any claim from them or anyone here that their software is the only answer to security is, as far as I can tell from reading the entire thread (numerous times), arguing against a figment of your imagination.
Obviously there's some miscommunication between Ozone and Phoenix. Phoenix was simply speaking in terms of philosophy in which if you don't trust MS then you won't use it. Ozone is simply stating what he likes and what he doesn't like. This doesn't go hand in hand with Ozone's philosophy. Major miscommunication. Though I have to admit that using a product that you don't trust doesn't make much sense but if you break it down in categories such as gaming, productivity and security, you'll understand that Ozone *likes* the gaming and productivity part while disliking security. It doesn't have much to do with trust. Analogy of real life, you may like hanging out with a girl just simply because she's fun to hang out with but you don't have to trust her with anything you tell her or share because she lacks commitment or honesty (she may be a slut ). I believe I understand both Ozone and Phoenix but they just obviously can't understand each other. Take care, kids.
-J.
). I believe I understand both Ozone and Phoenix but they just obviously can't understand each other. Take care, kids.-J.