Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (
More info?)
George Hester wrote:
> The security issues that MDAC 2.8 was to fix are more rightly called
> "removal of enhancements." For example the removal of Data Access
> functionality with one of the updates to IE. These "security" fixes if
> installed turns Visual InterDev into a no show. You may not care about
> that but the fact remains that MDAC security fixes as well as IE security
> fixes disable functionality of your Windows. From my perspective it is
> better to take the necessary security precautions imstead of disabling
> Windows and its constituent parts. Not all agree with me here we each
> make our own decisions.
Okay thanks for explaining your view on that.
Also yes I think it's well understood that 'sometimes' yes security updates
do more to cause other problems than was intended, but moreso if the original
programmer is not attending their own code and a new person is on the job,
then it can be more of a stop gap measure instead of being thoroughly thought
through.
> The issue of MDAC and .NET was more prone to effect Windows XP.
> Documented. But the same issue occurs in Windows 2000. I spoke to
> Microsoft about my "experience" with MDAC 2.8 in Windows 2000 and he told
> me, "yes" they have a lot of support calls from businesses with that setup
> and he suggested I stay at 2.7 and I am passing that info along to you.
Okay thanks for explaining that more.
I would never install .NET on any OS anyway, just my personal preference, and
so if it was an issue between MDAC vrs .NET then that leaves me gladly out of
the loop. I can't recall though if the OP said they need to use .NET or not?
MDAC v2.8 is installed on all my W98SE, W2000, WXP boxes and seems to be
flawless; I wonder if I may not need to utilize it the way others may need
to.
> No I don't know if they have "fixed" it. I don't care to test it again.
> For one thing I will not install 2.8 in Windows 2000. It's in Windows XP
> and 2003 and so they are prime candidates for upgrades to MDAC from 2.8
> on. Also IE from 6 on. Windows 2000 upgrades should stop at MDAC 2.7 and
> IE 5.5. After that although everything seems well it may not be. I think
> the op has experienced this.
Now that's interesting you stop at 5.5SP2 on W2K
In one sense I almost understand that sentiment but feel that way instead
with IE5.5SP2 on W98SE for a number of reasons. At least 5.5 is still being
undated for W2K but unfortunately it's not for W98SE and so there is a bit of
a force play if one want's to stay current with security updates, of which
there seems to be plenty of important ones these days. I agree with you 'in
some cases' that because of the infallibility of the way they code updates
that sometimes it's better to take the necessary security precautions instead
of installing a particular security update when that update was poorly
improvised, and/or yes have always noticed sometimes security updates limit
or even break the original functionality. I can't see any reason for not
going to IE6 on W2K though; although the transition from 5.5 to 6 getting and
use to the new cookie and privacy control way of doing things - was
admittedly an unwanted royal p.i.t.a
Okay, thanks for the replies, I think though still for me I'll stay with MDAC
2.8 for all my OS's until I find a specific reason or active scenario that
proves it should be otherwise.
Rick
>
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:uIMEcKnRFHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> George Hester wrote:
>> > You really cannot return to a prior version of MDAC. Much easier to
>> > reintall the op sys. Sorry. MDAC 2.8 IS valid for Windows 2000 just
>> > that I know it is not without its problems in Windows 2000. Spoke wih
>> > Microsoft about it and they concur. One thing it can do is screw up the
>> > .NET Frameowrk. I believe without that the issues are small. But hey
>>
>>
>> Okay, well I personally wouldn't install .NET if you paid me anyway, so it
>> just makes good sense to security & program update to the latest 2.8.
>>
>> However back to your assessment, and you do know that .NET has gone
>> through quite a few updates and so I would ask you what was the date when
>> you had checked that? ..and the next obvious question would be have you
>> checked to see if your assessment already has been fixed by now?
>>
>> Do you have links speaking to the problems with .NET & MDAC v2.8 ?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> > there is no difference between MDAC 2.7 and 2.8 other than some security
>> > fixes which you will probably never experience adversely with just 2.7
>> > installed.
>> >
>> > --
>> > George Hester
>> > _________________________________
>> > "cran" <cran5101@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > news:5A95F7A6-AA48-4621-8CFB-CBBA53E8D4CE@microsoft.com...
>> >> Thanks George. So three things . . .
>> >> o If MDAC 2.8 is not valid for W2K, should I go back to V
>> >> 2.5? o If I stay with V2.8 what are the consequences.
>> >> o The error I get with the Security Patch install is
>> >> "update/update.exe is not a valid WIN32 application!
>> >>
>> >> Robert Rudek
>> >>
>> >> "George Hester" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "cran" <cran5101@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:A7F57666-3E6F-43A3-926E-A5C470F032D1@microsoft.com...
>> >> > > Was told by the tech group at Canon that their Multipass product
>> >> > > was giving an error (5020 message becassue the MDAC version on my
>> >> > > machine was not at least V2.7.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Three questions:
>> >> > > o I am current with all service packs, security / critical
>> >> > > updates and other updates except for Express. Would that not update
>> >> > > the MDAC component?
>> >> >
>> >> > No not really. If you wanted to stay at MDAC 2.5 native to Windows
>> >> > 2000 why should a Service Pack force an upgrade on you? Update to
>> >> > 2.7 with the Refresh (aka SP2).
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > o Downloaded the latest MDAC V 2.8 but the latest security
>> >> > > compnent would not install with an error message (not exact) that
>> >> > > the method used used not proper.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Do NOT put 2.8 in Windows 2000. You want that version of MDAC switch
>> >> > to XP or Windows 2003.
>> >> >
>> >> > > o The new MDAC did not correct the problem with the script file
>> >> > > in the C5500 (Canon) suite. The error was the script file may be
>> >> > > bad. Do these appear related?
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't have enough information to take a stab at that.
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > cran
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > George Hester
>> >> > _________________________________
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram