Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is SP2 really necessary?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
February 27, 2005 7:18:02 AM

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

Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he asked
me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without question!
What is the real answer?

More about : sp2

Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:18:03 AM

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

Is it really necessary? Depends.

It's a security oriented service pack that will, intentionally, break some
things. Since you're starting from essentially a clean slate, as long as the
hardware, BIOS and device drivers will support it, go with SP2.

Generally it only becomes questionable when talking about current mission
critical platforms.

--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.


"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
> asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good
> virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used
> to following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without
> question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:18:03 AM

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

SP2 is part of the operating system and is a lot less vulnerable than
previous versions to all sorts of attacks.

Read all about SP2 here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
> asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good
> virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used
> to following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without
> question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:18:03 AM

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

Windows XP Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

Top 10 Reasons to Install Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/topten.mspx

What makes SP2 so important?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/overview.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Happy" wrote:

| Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
| dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he asked
| me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
| checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
| following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes my BS!) without question!
| What is the real answer?
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:18:03 AM

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

No. Service Pack 2 is not really necessary. Not yet, anyway. Keep your
system up to date with the latest Critical Updates, make sure your firewall,
anti-virus, spyware and adware software is also routinely updated and you're
good to go.

"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
asked
> me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
> checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
> following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
>
February 27, 2005 8:42:38 AM

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

"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
asked
> me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
> checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
> following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
>

for security issues, you definately want to go with sp2...
the only reason i can think of for not using it ...would be with a totally
non-networked machine.

assuming the machine is used on-line...
after installing sp2, not only will the security be a bit better... you
should no longer experience those annoying "pop-ups"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 10:14:27 AM

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

SP2 has a cursory security solution. It isn't to par with good firewalls.
It has some trojan and ICMP ports open and no way to close them without the
use of third party tools. It doesn't have a stealth mode available either.
So someone can actually find out among many things what OS you are running.
I've noticed that MS uses this technique in the windows update site where it
checks to see that you have an MS OS and even the browser type running.
When I use the stealth mode on my firewall windows update won't work and
says I need a newer browser. If you support the fact that MS is the popular
business and common home user OS then it makes sense for hackers/hijackers
to want to know what OS you are running so they can defeat your security.
Microsoft is offering their beta spyware remover. I believe that you can
use better products at this time to do what SP2 doesn't do yet. Not that it
won't in the future.


"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
> asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good
> virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used
> to following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without
> question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:50:43 AM

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

If the PC already has a firewall, and all XP critical updates, and
anti-spyware software, and of course anti-virus software, you can probably
live without SP2, at least for a while. (By the way, whether you install
SP-2 or not, be sure to install a third-party firewall, which blocks both
incomming and outgoing communications; the XP firewall only blocks incomming
stuff. There are several good firewalls out there; Zone Alarm 5.5 is free
and compatible with SP-2.)

However, it is just a matter of time before Microsoft will cease providing
updates to XP with only SP-1. Further, any new software developed will
probably assume SP-2. So, unless you have a really good reason not to
install it, like it "breaks" a program that you feel is essential and there
is no easy update/upgrade path, install it now, or someday you will wish you
had.

By the way, if the prospect of downloading SP-2 frightens you as it did me
(when I had a 56K modem), be aware that Microsoft will send you a free copy
of SP-2 on CD. Unlike SP-1, they do not even charge shipping or handling.
Further, SP-2 is not copy protected, and in this one case Microsoft even
suggests that you share it with your friends. I quote from the wrapper on
the CD: "Share this CD with a friend! After you have installed Service
Pack 2, you can give this CD to a friend or family member using Windows XP."
Note that the same CD works for XP home and XP professional.

See this link, mid-page, right side for info on getting the CD:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
> asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good
> virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used
> to following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without
> question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:06:20 PM

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

In news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:

> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be
> able to
> use dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2
> on,
> and he asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why
> not
> just a good virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer,
> being
> one who is used to following along and listening to MS, (and
> sometimes BS!) without question! What is the real answer?


First of all, whether you install SP2 or not, a good virus
checker is necessary. Neither is a substitute for the other.

Is SP2 *necessary*? "Necessary" is a very strong word, and no,
it's not literally necessary. But in my experienece, and that of
*many* others I know, it's extrememly stable and problem-free,
and there's no good reason *not* to install it. The few examples
of problems I've heard of installing SP2 were all because people
installed it on a malware-infested system. Prep properly for it,
and problems almost never occur.

SP2's security enhancements get a lot of press, but over and
above those, there are are many many fixes and improvements
contained within it. See "List of fixes included in Windows XP
Service Pack 2" at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 4:11:31 PM

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

At some point Microsoft will stop providing Critical Updates for non SP2
setups. The security "features" in SP2 takes some getting used to. You may
as well install it and get used to it before you are forced into it. --

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
asked
> me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
> checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
> following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without question!
> What is the real answer?
>
>
>
February 27, 2005 8:18:39 PM

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

Well, thanks, that's a good lot of opinions and suggestions, which I will
read, follow through the links, discuss with my brother, and share with a
couple of other friends in the same boat. I do have the SP2 CD, and have it
on this computer, so I could easily load it on his, with some prep, I
guess. I'll give it a bit of thought, and then decide how to proceed. I want
to thank you all again for these thoughts and suggestions.
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23Fkao6OHFHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> In news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
> Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:
>
>> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to
>> use dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on,
>> and he asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not
>> just a good virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being
>> one who is used to following along and listening to MS, (and
>> sometimes BS!) without question! What is the real answer?
>
>
> First of all, whether you install SP2 or not, a good virus checker is
> necessary. Neither is a substitute for the other.
>
> Is SP2 *necessary*? "Necessary" is a very strong word, and no, it's not
> literally necessary. But in my experienece, and that of *many* others I
> know, it's extrememly stable and problem-free, and there's no good reason
> *not* to install it. The few examples of problems I've heard of installing
> SP2 were all because people installed it on a malware-infested system.
> Prep properly for it, and problems almost never occur.
>
> SP2's security enhancements get a lot of press, but over and above those,
> there are are many many fixes and improvements contained within it. See
> "List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2" at
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 8:18:40 PM

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

In news:p hnUd.10540$oh4.384099@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:

> Well, thanks, that's a good lot of opinions and suggestions,
> which I
> will read, follow through the links, discuss with my brother,
> and
> share with a couple of other friends in the same boat. I do
> have the SP2 CD, and have it on this computer, so I could
> easily load it on
> his, with some prep, I guess. I'll give it a bit of thought,
> and then
> decide how to proceed. I want to thank you all again for these
> thoughts and suggestions.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> "Ken Blake"
> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:%23Fkao6OHFHA.3332@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> In news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca,
>> Happy <happy@trial.ca> typed:
>>
>>> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be
>>> able to
>>> use dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading
>>> SP2 on,
>>> and he asked me the question" is it really necessary?" and
>>> "why not
>>> just a good virus checker"? -- and I didn't have a good
>>> answer,
>>> being one who is used to following along and listening to MS,
>>> (and
>>> sometimes BS!) without question! What is the real answer?
>>
>>
>> First of all, whether you install SP2 or not, a good virus
>> checker is
>> necessary. Neither is a substitute for the other.
>>
>> Is SP2 *necessary*? "Necessary" is a very strong word, and no,
>> it's
>> not literally necessary. But in my experienece, and that of
>> *many*
>> others I know, it's extrememly stable and problem-free, and
>> there's
>> no good reason *not* to install it. The few examples of
>> problems
>> I've heard of installing SP2 were all because people installed
>> it on
>> a malware-infested system. Prep properly for it, and problems
>> almost
>> never occur. SP2's security enhancements get a lot of press,
>> but over and above those, there are are many many fixes and
>> improvements contained
>> within it. See "List of fixes included in Windows XP Service
>> Pack 2"
>> at
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
March 1, 2005 5:41:59 AM

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

10 / 4. I'm ok with it, just trying to explain to my brother, who has not
used internet at all. Thanks again.
"Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote in message
news:uuJpGfUHFHA.3624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> At some point Microsoft will stop providing Critical Updates for non SP2
> setups. The security "features" in SP2 takes some getting used to. You may
> as well install it and get used to it before you are forced into it. --
>
> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
>
> "Happy" <happy@trial.ca> wrote in message
> news:_RbUd.10294$oh4.375523@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Just helping my brother put an older computer in order to be able to use
>> dial up, and word processing. I was considering loading SP2 on, and he
> asked
>> me the question" is it really necessary?" and "why not just a good virus
>> checker"? -- and I didn't have a good answer, being one who is used to
>> following along and listening to MS, (and sometimes BS!) without
>> question!
>> What is the real answer?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
!