Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

xp is fine - why should I install service pack 2?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
December 14, 2004 1:09:46 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
with enormous Service Pack 2?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
| XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should
'fix it'
| with enormous Service Pack 2?
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yes.

"John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
> XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> with enormous Service Pack 2?
Related resources
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com,
John <nospam@plusnet.com> typed:

> XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix
> it'
> with enormous Service Pack 2?


SP2 is much more than a fix for problems you may be seeing. It
has thousands of lines of new code in it, and makes many
improvements and fixes to problems that you may not have yet
experienced. See List of fixes included in Windows XP Service
Pack 2
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2

Over and above that, it's a security-oriented service pack. It
closes security exposures that in some cases have not yet been
exploited. That means that without it, you can be vulnerable to
new attacks that will be made in the future.

An occasional person has a problem with it, but most
installations are easy, straightforward and problem-free if you
prepare properly for it. See
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:09:46 +0000, John wrote:

> XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> with enormous Service Pack 2?

Lots of information about the changes provided with SP2 on the net,
especially the Microsoft site
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx).
It's up to you whether you update or not but new software and subsequent
updates will be optimized for SP2.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few months
until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a major
upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.

Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some common
sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city, when
that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to) it.
Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.

There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better than
the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally free
of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing it.
Not yet, anyway.

"John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
> XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> with enormous Service Pack 2?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You appear to view SP2 as a bugfix. It is not. It is the security revision
to XP. A lot of the OS has been recompiled to take advantage of such things
as data execution protection. Whether or not you 'freeze' your OS in time
is your responsibility.

"John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
> XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> with enormous Service Pack 2?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Kevin" wrote:

> Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
> talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few months
> until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a major
> upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
> that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
> Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.
>
> Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some common
> sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city, when
> that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to) it.
> Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.
>
> There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better than
> the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally free
> of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
> required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing it.
> Not yet, anyway.
>
> "John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
> news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
> > XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> > with enormous Service Pack 2?
>
>
>
Kevin, you say that you are waiting and later on state that other items are
better. I don't understand how you can profess to know if you haven't tried
it.

Further, there a millions of successful installs that have made those
systems more secure and therefore mine. Our computer club has installed not
only SP2 on all 15 Windows based computers. Now for a contrary position, the
same club has installed Firefox 1.0 as the default browser on the same
computers.

Computer viruses are much like a herd of cattle, immunize 85% and the entire
herd is relatively safe.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:25:29 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...

> Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113

But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.

Regards,
Joe Steele
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:25:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Some but whether it is most I don't know. I do know that
there are security fixes that are new in SP2.

If you don't install SP2 and you get hacked/infected that is
your problem, except you will be then spreading viruses to
everybody else.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"J&P" <jopam@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
news:%23$M5lKW4EHA.1976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
|
| "Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...
|
| > Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
|
| But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
|
| Regards,
| Joe Steele
|
|
|
December 14, 2004 10:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:

>You appear to view SP2 as a bugfix. It is not. It is the security revision
>to XP. A lot of the OS has been recompiled to take advantage of such things
>as data execution protection. Whether or not you 'freeze' your OS in time
>is your responsibility.

I *had* taken the trouble to read the MS publicity on SP2 and I also
had read about some difficulties people had in getting their trusted
virus protection and firewall systems to work with SP2. I had also
noted the odd poster about difficulty with uninstalling it. Hence my
question.

With Win98 (and now with xp) , I have run Computer Associates' EZ
antivirus (which updates data most days and is always checked before I
download email) for some years now, and firewalls likewise, originally
Zone Alarm and now Agnitum Outpost - all on recommendations, at the
time, from the appropriate newsgroups. I have seen many attempts to
get into my system bounce off and I have, fortunately, not yet been
caught at the wrong psychological moment by a convincing-looking
attachment which got to me before CA did.

This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and get
problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very supportive - and
much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate to
conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go for
it.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 11:23:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Chuck Davis" <ChuckDavis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9637A4F-7CEB-4520-88AC-2CD4BBFB3734@microsoft.com...
|
|
| "Kevin" wrote:
|
| > Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
| > talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few
months
| > until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a
major
| > upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
| > that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
| > Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.
| >
| > Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some
common
| > sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city,
when
| > that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to)
it.
| > Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.
| >
| > There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better
than
| > the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally
free
| > of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
| > required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing
it.
| > Not yet, anyway.
| >
| > "John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
| > news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
| > > XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
| > > with enormous Service Pack 2?
| >
| >
| >
| Kevin, you say that you are waiting and later on state that other items
are
| better. I don't understand how you can profess to know if you haven't
tried
| it.

Do you mean how can he know that the free Zone Alarm or Sygate firewalls are
better than the one-way Xp firewall?

| Further, there a millions of successful installs that have made those
| systems more secure and therefore mine.

Millions of successful installs have made those systems yours???

| Our computer club has installed not only SP2 on all 15 Windows based
| computers.

And the rest of the sentence is...??

| Now for a contrary position, the same club has installed Firefox 1.0 as
the |default browser on the same computers.

Contrary to what?

| Computer viruses are much like a herd of cattle, immunize 85% and the
entire
| herd is relatively safe.

Did you mean *computers* are like a herd of cattle? How do you immunize a
virus?? And from what?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:46:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi, Joe.

> But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.

NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many hotfixes after SP1
and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster worm came in a
hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2. It is, of course,
included in SP2.

And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing Blaster fix would
easily justify SP2 all by itself.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"J&P" <jopam@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
news:%23$M5lKW4EHA.1976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...
>
>> Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
>
> But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
>
> Regards,
> Joe Steele
December 14, 2004 1:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

....
| This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and
get
| problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very
supportive - and
| much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate
to
| conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go
for
| it.

Yes, you've had a good mix of responses, and I admit I agree with
all but one, that one possibily being a mis-speak.

However, one item no one mentioned is: w/r to future fixes, free
updates, etc., you'll need SP2. Pre SP2 XP is headed for the
non-support bin, if not already there. MS has already stated
there will be no further updates for pre-SP2 and I -think- they
are discontinuing support also.

IMO, MS wishes SP2 is what they had originally released prior to
even SP1. Else they wouldn't have made this much of an upgrade
free, even including the S&H when you order the CD: a first for
MS, far as I know. That's when you get with the rush-to-market
mentality of the world these days. Users demand it NOW,
companies try to provide it NOW, and you get a zoo full of never
before seen bugs. That's why Linux, et al are getting good reps:
they're late to market and lots cheaper, but ... you have to wait
while the software is gotten mostly right before you and I see
it. Meanwhile, MS becomes solidly entrenched and looks like
they're here for the long haul, so ... .
Some think the continual evolution of windows patches is
intentional but I've never been able to buy into that one.
Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
easily managed.

Pop
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Product support for WinXP SP1 doesn't end until 17-Sep-2006

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps

Tom
"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:o QmAU6e4EHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| ...
| | This has been most helpful, so far and, if I install SP2 and
| get
| | problems, I feel confident that this ng will be very
| supportive - and
| | much appreciated by me. So I guess I'll wait for this debate
| to
| | conclude and then, if things continue to look as at present, go
| for
| | it.
|
| Yes, you've had a good mix of responses, and I admit I agree with
| all but one, that one possibily being a mis-speak.
|
| However, one item no one mentioned is: w/r to future fixes, free
| updates, etc., you'll need SP2. Pre SP2 XP is headed for the
| non-support bin, if not already there. MS has already stated
| there will be no further updates for pre-SP2 and I -think- they
| are discontinuing support also.
|
| IMO, MS wishes SP2 is what they had originally released prior to
| even SP1. Else they wouldn't have made this much of an upgrade
| free, even including the S&H when you order the CD: a first for
| MS, far as I know. That's when you get with the rush-to-market
| mentality of the world these days. Users demand it NOW,
| companies try to provide it NOW, and you get a zoo full of never
| before seen bugs. That's why Linux, et al are getting good reps:
| they're late to market and lots cheaper, but ... you have to wait
| while the software is gotten mostly right before you and I see
| it. Meanwhile, MS becomes solidly entrenched and looks like
| they're here for the long haul, so ... .
| Some think the continual evolution of windows patches is
| intentional but I've never been able to buy into that one.
| Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
| recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
| catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
| easily managed.
|
| Pop
|
|
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:ewMWHWf4EHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Hi, Joe.
|
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
|
| NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many hotfixes after SP1
| and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster worm came in a
| hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2. It is, of
course,
| included in SP2.
|
| And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing Blaster fix would
| easily justify SP2 all by itself.
|
| RC
| --
| R. C. White, CPA
| San Marcos, TX
| rc@corridor.net
| Microsoft Windows MVP
|

Won't argue over the pros and cons of installing SP2; each person has to
weigh the potential risks and benefits for him- or herself. But if you're
saying that the Blaster fix is worth a potentially 250Mb+ "patch" when all
one has to do is turn on a firewall, I have to wonder.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

SP2 is part new, but it is a one shot roll-up of all
previously issued SP and patches. So that the only reason
not to see previous patches listed, would be if a patch was
revoked.


"R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:ewMWHWf4EHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Hi, Joe.
|
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1,
Jim.
|
| NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many
hotfixes after SP1
| and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster
worm came in a
| hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2.
It is, of course,
| included in SP2.
|
| And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing
Blaster fix would
| easily justify SP2 all by itself.
|
| RC
| --
| R. C. White, CPA
| San Marcos, TX
| rc@corridor.net
| Microsoft Windows MVP
|
| "J&P" <jopam@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
| news:%23$M5lKW4EHA.1976@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "Jim Macklin" <> wrote in message ...
| >
| >> Yes, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
| >
| > But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1,
Jim.
| >
| > Regards,
| > Joe Steele
|
December 14, 2004 6:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Just carefully read, and follow, MS's instructions and
>recommendations for the preps for SP2 and you'll have no
>catastrophic problems, possibly a couple of irritations, but all
>easily managed.

'tis done. And there were no problems (so far) and one bonus - I had
been having trouble with my firewall blocking off the internet. I had
'solved' it by going back to a previous firewall version. Now I find
that, after a funny sort of start, in which the problem seemed to be
still there, it corrected itself after a couple of restarts and I'm
able to run with the most recent version.

This is the second indication that I've had that XP likes 'to be told
twice' - is this fundamental, or common experience, I wonder?

So, at the moment, with another 1.3 gig of programme, my HDD is
already beginning to look inadequate (I've been through the 'do I
replace the computer or upgrade the HDD' issue and have decided on the
HDD upgrade) but commitment towards XP is growing steadily.

Part of that commitment springs from the support I'm getting from this
ng - for which, a heartfelt 'thankyou.'
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 8:01:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Many thanks for the reply RC.

Perhaps my comment to Jim should have read <But many (most?) of those
problems were fixed in SP1, along with its many updates>.

I installed SP2 as soon as was made available, but I do feel that a large
part of it was to enable folks who had not downloaded the many, previous
updates to catch up. A decision which I approve of but should be considered
when answering John's (the OP) question.

Regards
Joe Steele

"R. C. White" <> wrote in message l...

> Hi, Joe.
>
>> But many (most?) of those problems were fixed in SP1, Jim.
>
> NO. If that were so, we would not have needed the many hotfixes after SP1
> and before SP2. For example, protection from the Blaster worm came in a
> hotfix in July '03, long after SP1 and a year before SP2. It is, of
> course, included in SP2.
>
> And even if "most" fixes had been in SP1, that missing Blaster fix would
> easily justify SP2 all by itself.
>
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 10:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Chuck Davis" <ChuckDavis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9637A4F-7CEB-4520-88AC-2CD4BBFB3734@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Kevin" wrote:
>
> > Lots of good replies to your post, from people who know what they are
> > talking about. On the other hand, I personally am waiting for a few
months
> > until the first patches for the Service Pack are issued. This is a
major
> > upgrade of the operating system and it makes serious changes to the code
> > that is Windows XP. As for security concerns if you don't install this
> > Service Pack, the answer is pure BS.
> >
> > Run a good firewall, anti-virus and malware applications and use some
common
> > sense when checking your email and surfing. Just like in the big city,
when
> > that alley (or website) looks questionable, don't go down (or surf to)
it.
> > Keep your wits about you and have good situational awareness.
> >
> > There are many third-party security applications that are worlds better
than
> > the ones Microsoft has included in SP2. Most, if not all, are totally
free
> > of charge. Remember that the installation of Service Pack 2 is not
> > required. You are not forced or coerced into downloading and installing
it.
> > Not yet, anyway.
> >
> > "John" <nospam@plusnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bk4sr0dj7ser0lob6i3i719b2jcn3aclf7@4ax.com...
> > > XP doesn't seem broke so is there any reason why I should 'fix it'
> > > with enormous Service Pack 2?
> >
> >
> >
> Kevin, you say that you are waiting and later on state that other items
are
> better. I don't understand how you can profess to know if you haven't
tried
> it.
>
> Further, there a millions of successful installs that have made those
> systems more secure and therefore mine. Our computer club has installed
not
> only SP2 on all 15 Windows based computers. Now for a contrary position,
the
> same club has installed Firefox 1.0 as the default browser on the same
> computers.
>
> Computer viruses are much like a herd of cattle, immunize 85% and the
entire
> herd is relatively safe.

Chuck,
The fact that most, if not all, of the security applications provided in SP
2 are inferior to third party software is widely known in the computing
industry. Many of the popular magazines like PC World, PC Magazine and
Computer Shopper Magazine have published numerous articles to that effect.
I won't take the chance of hosing my system until I have a better feeling
about SP 2. Microsoft should have aggressively marketed this major upgrade
to their premiere operating system with considerably more emphasis on
preparing your system for the installation.

When Microsoft releases the SP 2 patches, which will be sooner rather than
later, I will consider installing it, disabling the included security
features. That will all be rendered moot when they make the installation of
Service Pack 2 a prerequisite for further updates, something they are also
going to do sooner rather than later.
December 14, 2004 11:17:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

....
|
| This is the second indication that I've had that XP likes 'to
be told
| twice' - is this fundamental, or common experience, I wonder?

Dunno why, but have the same experience here. XP in fact, seems
to be a lot more self-healing than any of the preceding versions
were.

|
| So, at the moment, with another 1.3 gig of programme, my HDD is
| already beginning to look inadequate (I've been through the 'do
I
| replace the computer or upgrade the HDD' issue and have decided
on the
| HDD upgrade) but commitment towards XP is growing steadily.
....

If you mean you're on a slow machine, you might also consider
having lots of RAM, maybe a Gig if your mb/CMOS will handle it.
A lot of people like to say anything over 512 Meg doesn't help
much, but apparently it does with XP on the slower machines; I've
seen lots of happy campers who added lots of RAM. Then again,
for a few hundred more, since you already have the speakers,
monitor, etc., a new box doesn't cost all THAT much more than
some RAM chips, and with all those nice new bells & whistles to
play with ... . <g> 'hppy 'puting!

Pop
December 15, 2004 9:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote:

>
>If you mean you're on a slow machine, you might also consider
>having lots of RAM, maybe a Gig if your mb/CMOS will handle it.

I suspect that at 1GHz, my machine is considered 'slow' but I like to
wait for a factor of five speed improvement before changing machines.
That puts an amusing light on the future - I think microwave cookers
run at x-band (9GHz) as does my satellite broadcasting detector. I
sometimes wonder about what happens with a circuit running at
significant power, in an enclosed space, at these frequencies.

But I expect Intel have it all worked out. :) 

Anyway, to respond to your memory point, when I bought the machine, a
couple of years ago, I was in the throes of converting my music tapes
to CDs and found that I couldn't possibly avoid editing music files to
split tracks reliably, especially since most of my music was
classical. Hence the real need for editing big files - hence I went
for a quicker machine (quicker, then, at any rate) and half a gig of
RAM. I got ample reward and, currently, XP seems to be running as
quickly as 98se did, in the days before I did the sensible thing and
slimmed 98se down with the aid of that wonderful piece of maverick
work, that blow for the freedom of the individual against badly
behaving corporate giants, - 98lite!

But that's OT and naughty of me to mention it.
December 15, 2004 9:24:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote:


>When Microsoft releases the SP 2 patches, which will be sooner rather than
>later, I will consider installing it, disabling the included security
>features. That will all be rendered moot when they make the installation of
>Service Pack 2 a prerequisite for further updates, something they are also
>going to do sooner rather than later.
>

If an xp newbie can add a word here, when I installed xp with sp1, I
felt reluctant to take on board the massive bulk of sp2 when I had
full faith in my firewall and antiv.

Annoyingly, my firewall wouldn't leave my antiv in peace (the two are
Agnitum Outpost and EZAntivirus). I mucked around for ages and
eventually found that I could get things going again by reverting to
an earlier version of Outpost.

Then, under the almost overwhelming consensus right here, I installed
sp2. Now, the most recent Outpost has stopped mucking up my antiv.

It seems like the old story - the software apps get written for the
new OS versions and old versions start getting in bother. We can put
up a bit of a fight, but sooner or later, the fact that MS has us by
the short and curly, tells.

In my case, in some isolation from the rest of the world, it seems, I
really like Easy CDCreator and packet writing. The most recent
version is a marked improvement on earlier messy work by Roxio, but it
won't run on 98se - so I end up trying xp and then find I need lots
more HDD.

And so it goes.

I ought to confess, however, that I do really like getting in to new
technology - I may be 69 but my science training has me in its grip
for ever. :) 
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"John" <> wrote in message....

> ........................................................ XP seems to be
> running as
> quickly as 98se did, in the days before I did the sensible thing and
> slimmed 98se down with the aid of that wonderful piece of maverick
> work, that blow for the freedom of the individual against badly
> behaving corporate giants, - 98lite!
>
> But that's OT and naughty of me to mention it.

John, you may be able to do the same with XP. XPlite is available from the
same source.

If you do use XPlite, perhaps you report back and tell us the results.

Regards,
Joe Steele
December 16, 2004 10:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"J&P" <jopam@beeteeinternet.com> wrote:

>
>John, you may be able to do the same with XP. XPlite is available from the
>same source.
>
>If you do use XPlite, perhaps you report back and tell us the results.

Shane Brooks (www.litepc.com) has offered xplite and 2000lite for some
time. My experience with 98lite, these past few years, has been
almost entirely positive.

Beyond that, as a newbie, I suspect I should not go.

More directly on topic is the fact that, yesterday, when first using
my xp installation of my Epson software to 'scan to email' I didn't
find it all that easy to release xp's hold on its choice of emailer.
(I'm happily running my 98se installation of Eudora out of xp) . It
seems that MS has obeyed the court's direction to loosen its hold in a
thoroughly grudging fashion. I ended up sorting my scan to email but
then found that I could no longer get IE6 until I gave back permission
to xp to use the MS apps, including outlook express, which I detest -
this is just plain silly and I have no doubt at all that xplite, as
did 98lite, will emancipate users from this kind of MS bullying.

Looking back at that para, I see that the description of issues in
dual-booting can get a little difficult to describe concisely and
unambiguously. I apologise for my own rather limited success at it.
!