XP Service Pack 2, Opinions?

I installed windows xp service pack 2 last night, and in general I have one concluion

IT IS HUGE

the download wasn’t really a problem [it took, perhaps 15 minutes], the problem is that the resulting install IS FRI… HUGE!

bah

so anyway, more rambling. my c:\ partition is only 3Gb and I have done to ensure that the ONLY thing on there is the windows directory
[I have failed, many installers put things in c:\program files\ even if told to install elsewhere]

so, the total of the sp2 upgrade probably weighed 600Mb, I now have only 115Mb free

there are as you probably have heard by now, already security veurnabilities which are MAJOR DESIGN FLAWS [hard to fix], such as how any application can change security settings.

however, it doesn’t seem to have messed up my system other than the “low on disk space” warnings, I think I will be removing it anway
[at least until I can devote 10Gb to that drive, and preferably figure out how to move the “documents and settings” folder to another drive]

Well I use windows XP Porffesional, and all I updated was just 3 critical security fixes that where reported on the news tv channel, but I didn’t update anything else.

I even din’t install sp1, but it all runs like 1 year on a fresh install with 3 critical updates without any crash or forced reboot by crashed programs. Before this I updated windows almost every week, and installed sp1, the problem I got, it crashed all times, and so on. So the next windows I’ll install will be the next total version, no updates or expansion packs. :stuck_out_tongue:

Btw, about security fixes that microsoft told you to install, it’s bulshit. These updates are just things for busnisses, companies, but for a normal houshold user it doesn’t add more then some less mb free space on your pc. If you install xp prof with 2 critical updates for worms, and a good anti virus, you can run windows for years without crashing it unless you don’t know how to use it :stuck_out_tongue:

Just get a unix based system then you won’t need to upgrade all the time. I think Linux comes in a 1GB download so you’re not far off your 600MB upgrade. Even when there’s a flicker of a security flaw, which rarely happens, the miniscule upgrade is there before anyone can exploit the flaw.

Microsoft will never be rid of the security issues they have. I understand you might need Windows for some software but if you dual boot, using Linux mainly, then you can boot into Windows for the stuff you need. You don’t even need WinXP - isn’t Win2000 better anyway?

yeah i have been running unix version 0.001 since the begining and its soo awsome, i mean seriously…bugger off.

linux users upgrade more than windows people. seriously its funny.

Alltaken %| %| %| %| (ha ha ha ha)

yeah i have been running unix version 0.001 since the begining and its soo awsome, i mean seriously…bugger off.

linux users upgrade more than windows people. seriously its funny.

Alltaken %| %| %| %| (ha ha ha ha)[/quote]

They don’t need to upgrade though. They do upgrade because Linux is in constant development with features etc. Windows users need to upgrade because the system has so many flaws that need fixed. Unfortunately, those flaws are then added to in successive upgrades:

Thus the cycle repeats.

Anyway, I was only suggesting Linux because it’s clear z3r0 d has an X86 system, otherwise I would recommend the supremo OS X (which rules BTW :)).

Wow, that’s something I thought I’d hear from you :stuck_out_tongue:

SP2 is a good attempt at increasing the security of WinXP. Instead of upgrading to SP2, I would recommend buying Windows XP SP2 (if you have the money). I’m happy with WinXP SP1, and I’m not thinking about downloading SP2.

Hey! Downloading now! :smiley:

I’ll tell you what I think about it when it’s done (if I have time).

GO LINUX!
Go secondrate software!
Go unsupporting hardware!
Go egopumping!
WOOT
YAAY!

(OSX is the best for security BTW)

well technically nobody needed to move on from dos. but they did.

its called new features and advancement.

and if i remember, mandrake 9.0 went to 9.1 then 9.2… were they fixing stuff? yeah.

its not about the quality of the software i think you are talking, its about “your expectations”

you expect windows to be perfect so you rate it as such, whereas linux is known to be a User nightmare to setup but is good once setup, so really your expectations have beaten you.

Alltaken

Well the biggest thing that keeps me off installing Linux (I did it once) is the huge time to take to install it good. The another thing is, I’ve got a bunch of windows software here, and it won’t work on Linux, like the most graphic design things and games.

Also my server isn’t Linux because I like to experimentate with software for servers, and most of the time (99%) it’s windows applications. If Linux could run windows software with ease without installing extra plugins or programs to run them, I should try it again. Until that time I stick with win and dos.

well, i eared the sp2 was to be AVOIDED. it crash stuff. some program don’t start anymore, it was so bullshit microsoft had to remove it and change some stuff. in fact, SP2 is available since the begining of august or more. link to stuff up my though:
*


*
First SP2 Exploit Found
On August 19th, 2004 with 0 comments
theluckyleper writes "eWeek is reporting on 'a newly discovered vulnerability in Windows XP Service Pack 2 that could allow a malicious Web site to deposit an…
IT > Security, Microsoft, Windows
*

*

*

After reading all these news. I don’t want to touch this service pack anymore.

It may be a little bit unfair to smash Windows, in this case (and, ahh, “so to speak”) because it isn’t “intrinsically insecure and unsecurable.” Modern versions of Windows, like Unix and OS/X and so-on, can be secured but usually aren’t.

The basic problem is that, by default, one user-ID is created and that user is an all-powerful Administrator. So, when a virus sneaks in and runs, it also has the powers of an all-powerful Administrator!

It doesn’t have to be so. All that users must do, if only they were told that they need to do it and were lead through it by the installation, is to set up two user-IDs for themselves: one ordinary, and one “for system maintenance only.”

User-IDs with “ordinary” privileges can’t seriously damage the system: they’re not allowed! They can’t twiddle the global registry; can’t modify files that don’t belong to them; and so-on. Viruses who try to do nasty things, get errors and can’t run, and there’s nothing they can do about it.

When you want to be King of the Hill, all you must do is to explicitly put on your crown, by logging in again; exercise your authority; then take your crown off again and become an ordinary person again by switching back.

It’s as commonplace-sensible as locking the doors to your office and your filing-cabinets. But people routinely do with their computers what they would never consider doing with their homes.

I could actually be lead to believe that would work sunny… in fact that sounds like a great idea…

I’ll find out it’s bullshit though…

Uh oh, we’ve got a funny guy on our hands…

If you #$%& up Windows, it’s YOUR fault.

Uh oh, we’ve got a funny guy on our hands…

If you #$%& up Windows, it’s YOUR fault.[/quote]
actually… a semblable treath apeared on cgtalk. and someone had to reinstall sp1 to work on windows again…

Mac OS X is setup like that by default. Root user is disabled so you don’t own the system stuff as an admin - you can change some stuff in there with your admin password but other stuff has a system immutable bit set so that you need to be root to change it. It’s better than the Windows method of hiding the system folder. You never actually need to venture into the system folder on OS X because plugins etc. go in the library folder.

It’s true that you can do more to secure a Mac but you don’t need to. There aren’t any viruses for one thing.

I’ve posted this link before but scroll down to the bit titled “some surprises”:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/215

uhhh, well anway

nother update

I tried to remove it this morning, and…

I can’t

not enough hard disk space free [only 120Mb, need 341 more it says]

I’m gonna be getting a new hard drive [but moving my games will not be fun]

I don’t know if this helps or not but when I used Windows XP, I discovered that the trash bucket is sometimes set to use 1GB space by default. You can lower this and get back some of your space. It just means that anything higher than what you set gets deleted instantly.

With NTFS, windows’s filesystem is as secure as linux’s is. You can set it up so only certain users have access to certain files, etc. It’s even more versatile, because you’re not limited to user/group/world. You can specify so eg two people can access a file without creating a group with just those two users, only used for that file. The userface is a little clunkier than a nice chmod -R u+rw * but it is there, and no worse than any GUI frontend for chmod that I’ve seen (admittedly I’ve only seen the one in Konquerer and even then only briefly…)

Now, linux programs are usually made so that the program goes in /usr/bin, and the data (like config, etc) goes in ~ (the user’s home directory, like the Application Data and My Documents folders in windows) so if a user has read/execute access to /usr/bin and full access to * then they can run the programs.
Unfortunately a large majority of Windows programs are made so the program goes in C:\Program Files\whatever and the data goes in C:\Program Files\whatever (Yes some use Application Data, but not as many as don’t). This means it’s much more complicated to set up the access rules for the users, you have to individually for each program go through and mark the binaries as read only and the config files as read/write. If you mark the config files as read only then the program may not run correctly, and if you mark the binaries as read/write then they could become infected with viruses.
Similarly you have to go through HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software in the registry for software that puts its configuration there instead of HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software - and again you have to do it individually because some programs you don’t want the users to be able to change the settings for.

So the problem isn’t (inherantly) windows, it’s also the paradigm that most windows developers get into, assuming that the folder the program is in is writable (well of course it is, isn’t it? it managed to get installed there!)

Then of course there’s the fact that linux has root and normal users out-of-the-box but windows has only Administrator and the ludicrously limited Guest - but Windows with an out-of-the-box standard user would be pretty much unusable, because of the problems above.

Windows is not insecurable, but it takes way to much time to do it properly.

My 2.2 cents (GST incl)

Yes but… sadly these options is hidden on windows Xp home. you got what you paid for!