Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Time to upgrade SP1 to SP2?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
July 11, 2005 7:28:32 AM

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

Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?

Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.

Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.

Thanks!

Ken

More about : time upgrade sp1 sp2

Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:28:33 AM

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

I know that this response will bring some flames, and many groans. I am still using SP1a,
with a decent firewall, and a decent antivirus program. Most of SP2 deals with security
issues, which the below mentioned utilities, AND safe computing negate taking the chance
that my system will be one of many which have not played nice with an SP2 upgrade. I use
broadband cable and have not been infected with viruses/worms/adware/malware/hijacking
since installing the free Zone Alarm Standard firewall, and the free personal version of
AVG antivirus more than a year ago. As for the native XP firewall included with SP2, it
still does not monitor traffic in both directions. Yes, SP2 comes with a few other bells
and whistles, but I do not need them. My system is clean, and runs fine. If you have a
decent firewall, and decent antivirus program, and practice safe net surfing (no Kaaza, no
accepting Active X controllers unless you know exactly what they are, and if you REALLY
need them, no opening email file attachments unless you know exactly what they are, no
installing Search toolbars with spyware/malware, etc.. You will be safe. I will forego
SP2 until I purchase my next system, which will probably have Longhorn, the next version
of Windows. I already use Cookie Pal for managing cookies, and the free version of
Ad-Aware SE for scanning for spyware/adware/malware/data miner cookies, and use AdShield
for popups. An SP2 install would be superfluous for me. Also, I have read many posts,
complaining that installing SP2 has slowed down some systems. I know that MS will stop
supporting SP1a next year. By that time I will be ready for a new Longhorn system. SP2
may be fine for many, but I pass...
--

T.C.
t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
Remove [NoSpam] to reply



"Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:37:05 AM

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

SP2 has been out for a while now, and most software makers have developed
fixes for the programs that didn't work with it. I installed it on 5 systems
as soon as it came out and haven't had a problem - other than getting used to
it's new features such as the Security Center..

"Ken" wrote:

> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:36:27 AM

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

The following MS document has a listing of applications that may
have issues with SP2:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884130&p...

Generally, SP2 installs/runs very well. There are always those setups
where specific combinations of Hardware/Software will have problems.
Even though SP2 creates an Uninstall, I recommend that users take a
System Image (Ghost, True Image) before installing. Doing that reduces
the risk & provides recovery capabilities. Also, normal maintenance
before (Backups, Chkdsk, Defrag, Security Tools) wouldn't be a bad
idea.

"Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:50:40 AM

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

Not everyone, or even the majority can or would approach PC
use like you've described. SP2 beyond it's visible changes was
also re-compiled to avoid Buffer Overruns. This by itself makes
SP2 a viable upgrade. It's fine that you take measures that you
feel negates the need for SP2. However, your posting may keep
some XP users from adopting Service Pack 2. Keep in mind
that the majority of XP users aren't IT people and the concepts
of Cookie Mgmt, Firewalls, etc is "Greek" or "Geek" to them.
Software, especially Operating Systems evolve to meet ever
changing needs. I've never understood this attitude that installing
Service Packs is something to avoid.

"t.cruise" <t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o SwtCxghFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I know that this response will bring some flames, and many groans. I am
>still using SP1a,
> with a decent firewall, and a decent antivirus program. Most of SP2 deals
> with security
> issues, which the below mentioned utilities, AND safe computing negate
> taking the chance
> that my system will be one of many which have not played nice with an SP2
> upgrade. I use
> broadband cable and have not been infected with
> viruses/worms/adware/malware/hijacking
> since installing the free Zone Alarm Standard firewall, and the free
> personal version of
> AVG antivirus more than a year ago. As for the native XP firewall
> included with SP2, it
> still does not monitor traffic in both directions. Yes, SP2 comes with a
> few other bells
> and whistles, but I do not need them. My system is clean, and runs fine.
> If you have a
> decent firewall, and decent antivirus program, and practice safe net
> surfing (no Kaaza, no
> accepting Active X controllers unless you know exactly what they are, and
> if you REALLY
> need them, no opening email file attachments unless you know exactly what
> they are, no
> installing Search toolbars with spyware/malware, etc.. You will be safe.
> I will forego
> SP2 until I purchase my next system, which will probably have Longhorn,
> the next version
> of Windows. I already use Cookie Pal for managing cookies, and the free
> version of
> Ad-Aware SE for scanning for spyware/adware/malware/data miner cookies,
> and use AdShield
> for popups. An SP2 install would be superfluous for me. Also, I have
> read many posts,
> complaining that installing SP2 has slowed down some systems. I know that
> MS will stop
> supporting SP1a next year. By that time I will be ready for a new
> Longhorn system. SP2
> may be fine for many, but I pass...
> --
>
> T.C.
> t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
> Remove [NoSpam] to reply
>
>
>
> "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
>> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
>> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
>> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>>
>> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
>> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
>> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>>
>> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
>> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:55:51 AM

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

On 11 Jul 2005 03:28:32 -0700, "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
>hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
>software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
>Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
>Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
>MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
>programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
>Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
>dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ken

SP2 works very well, generally. It had to be developed for a plethora
of computer systems and software, so I am sure that at least ONE
software package will be broken. But for the most part, it works very
well with all major software.

NOTE about changing to DSL from dialup:
I found that when I changed from Cable to DSL that some firewall
functions were changed, no matter which firewall I used, such as no
longer hiding ping responses. This is a function of the DSL modem, I
am sure. Perhaps you will be able to find a router which hides ping
responses.

Here are the firewalls I tried when I changed to DSL:
ZoneLabs ZoneAlarm
Sygate Personal Firewall Professional
Tiny Personal Firewall
Most other major firewalls

They all refused to hide ping responses when I used the DSL
modem/router provided by the phone company. And the DSL modem/router
had a firewall (NAT firewall) which did not allow me to change it's
behavior to hide ping responses.

Personally, I believe you should go to Cable instead of DSL, if it is
available in your neighborhood. Most Cable modem/routers DO hide ping
responses.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
from my email address before sending.
=======================================================
July 11, 2005 1:23:51 PM

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

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 03:28:32 -0700, "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

<snip>

> Personally, I believe you should go to Cable instead of DSL, if it is
> available in your neighborhood. Most Cable modem/routers DO hide ping
> responses.
>

Hi. Why is it important to hide ping responses? I'm coming up to
speed on all these details, so any info would be most appreciated!

Also, on another newsgroup, the advice I got seemed to point to this:
As long as I have a modem/router that supports NAT (mine does--Westell
327W), and I keep my anti-virus and Adaware software up to date, the
risk of problems will be minimal for my home system. Does this sound
right?

As to Cable vs. DSL, it really came down to price for me. I don't need
the speed of cable, and DSL comes to about $100 cheaper a year. Are
there other reasons to choose Cable?

Thanks!

Ken
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:11:21 PM

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

In news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
Ken <kenandeva@yahoo.com> typed:

> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've
> been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to
> this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?


There is some such software, but not a lot that is likely to
affect you.

I think almost everyone should install SP2. Over and above its
highly-touted security fixes, there's lots of other stuff there.
Glance at the list of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2
at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=windowsxpsp2


But before upragding, first read
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45


> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web
> browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual
> C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service
> from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall
> considerations.


I'm missing your point here. Why should changing to DSL create
firewall considerations? You need a firewall whenever you are
comnected to the internet; how you are connected doesn't matter.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
July 11, 2005 3:37:53 PM

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

"Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>

Answered in help and support.
Please crosspost (ie enter a SMALL number of relevant groups in the "To"
field of the one message) rather than multiposing - sending different
messages with the same content to separate groups. This ensures that all the
replies are seen in the same place, rather than being spread over several
groups.

HTH
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:48:48 PM

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

It's called choice, do what seems right to your own situation. Mine is to
use SP2.



"t.cruise" <t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o SwtCxghFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I know that this response will bring some flames, and many groans. I am
>still using SP1a,
> with a decent firewall, and a decent antivirus program. Most of SP2 deals
> with security
> issues, which the below mentioned utilities, AND safe computing negate
> taking the chance
> that my system will be one of many which have not played nice with an SP2
> upgrade. I use
> broadband cable and have not been infected with
> viruses/worms/adware/malware/hijacking
> since installing the free Zone Alarm Standard firewall, and the free
> personal version of
> AVG antivirus more than a year ago. As for the native XP firewall
> included with SP2, it
> still does not monitor traffic in both directions. Yes, SP2 comes with a
> few other bells
> and whistles, but I do not need them. My system is clean, and runs fine.
> If you have a
> decent firewall, and decent antivirus program, and practice safe net
> surfing (no Kaaza, no
> accepting Active X controllers unless you know exactly what they are, and
> if you REALLY
> need them, no opening email file attachments unless you know exactly what
> they are, no
> installing Search toolbars with spyware/malware, etc.. You will be safe.
> I will forego
> SP2 until I purchase my next system, which will probably have Longhorn,
> the next version
> of Windows. I already use Cookie Pal for managing cookies, and the free
> version of
> Ad-Aware SE for scanning for spyware/adware/malware/data miner cookies,
> and use AdShield
> for popups. An SP2 install would be superfluous for me. Also, I have
> read many posts,
> complaining that installing SP2 has slowed down some systems. I know that
> MS will stop
> supporting SP1a next year. By that time I will be ready for a new
> Longhorn system. SP2
> may be fine for many, but I pass...
> --
>
> T.C.
> t__cruise@[NoSpam]hotmail.com
> Remove [NoSpam] to reply
>
>
>
> "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
>> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
>> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
>> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>>
>> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
>> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
>> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>>
>> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
>> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:57:34 PM

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

Whatever you decide to do, so not connect your XP SP1 pc to a broadband
connection without having some form of firewall (even the one included with
SP2) installed on your system.

my 2 sense
gerryR



"Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121077712.219276.139530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I've been an XP Home SP1 user for quite a while now. I've been
> hesitant to upgrade to SP2, because I've heard that some common
> software does not work properly on SP2. Is there any truth to this?
> Should I stop worrying and just upgrade?
>
> Note that my typical usage includes Eudora email, Mozilla web browser,
> MS Office Pro 2003, some rudementary Eclipse/Java and Visual C++
> programming, Norton AV 2005, and Adaware.
>
> Also of note is that I am about to change my Internet service from
> dial-up to DSL, so perhaps there are some firewall considerations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:59:00 AM

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

On 11 Jul 2005 09:23:51 -0700, "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On 11 Jul 2005 03:28:32 -0700, "Ken" <kenandeva@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Personally, I believe you should go to Cable instead of DSL, if it is
>> available in your neighborhood. Most Cable modem/routers DO hide ping
>> responses.
>>
>
>Hi. Why is it important to hide ping responses? I'm coming up to
>speed on all these details, so any info would be most appreciated!
>
>Also, on another newsgroup, the advice I got seemed to point to this:
>As long as I have a modem/router that supports NAT (mine does--Westell
>327W), and I keep my anti-virus and Adaware software up to date, the
>risk of problems will be minimal for my home system. Does this sound
>right?
>
>As to Cable vs. DSL, it really came down to price for me. I don't need
>the speed of cable, and DSL comes to about $100 cheaper a year. Are
>there other reasons to choose Cable?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ken

When a hacker pings your address randomly, and your computer returns a
ping response, it gives the hacker some very important information: he
knows that your address is valid. He will then concentrate his
efforts on breaking into your machine. DSL modems do not hide ping
responses. Not only that, but they leave open ports everywhere, which
only increases the chances a hacker will be able to take over your
machine. It appears that the Network Operating System support
personnel believe that you should have open ports. The same is true
for Satellite operators. Cable leaves no open ports, and just passes
the packets through to your machine.

While DSL may be cheaper than Cable, it is SLOWER than cable. While
most Cable speeds are routinely around 3-5mbps, DSL is almost
uniformly 1.5mbps (or less -- many times it is less). As an example,
I was only 2000 feet from the DSLAM, yet my DSL transmissions speeds
were ROUTINELY less than 1mbps (more often being 128-256kbps). This
is only if you have the closest distance to the Phone Company. The
further you are away from the Phone Company's DSLAM, the more the
speed of transmission drops off. If you are at the maximum distance
(10,000-15,000feet) from the DSLAM, that 1.5mb might drop to 128kbps.

In addition to the distance from the DSLAM, the quality of the signal
will also affect DSL transmission speeds. The more "noise" on the
line, the lower your speed will be. Also, there is the 13% TCP
overhead, which takes away from your actual speed. I admit that this
TCP overhead will also exist in Cable, but with speeds in excess of
3mbps, this is barely noticeable

While you may be getting a "cheaper" price for the DSL, you certainly
aren't getting a better "value" for the money. In its favor, Cable
speed does not drop off with distance. On the otherhand, Cable speed
DOES drop off with the number of machines which are currently attached
and active in the neighborhood loop.

To give DSL a little credit, the better (e.g. "newer" your house
wiring is, the higher the transmission rates will be (because there
will be less "noise" on the line). So in a newer house or apartment
building, the DSL transmission rate will usually be much better than
in an old house or apartment building, which have older copper wiring.
I say "usually" because, as I have already mentioned, DSL transmission
speed takes a hit with the distance you are from the DSLAM.

In addition, many Cable companies are trying to vigorously compete
with DSL providers in pricing, so the price difference (maybe $10 per
month more for higher bandwidth on Cable than DSL) is not as
noticeable anymore.

I do admit that it is important to have at least a good software
firewall and up-to-date antivirus suite, and being behind a NAT router
PLUS a software firewall will ALMOST ensure that your machine is
hidden from the Net (if you have a local address, which would not be
directly exposed to the Net.) However, if your NAT firewall returns
ping responses and exposes ports to the Net, some of that hiddenness
is lost. Sadly, most software firewalls do not hide ping responses
(no matter how you have it configured) if you are behind a NAT router
which DOES return ping responses. The NAT firewall will override the
software firewall.

Anyway, having used DSL, Cable, and Satellite, I prefer the speeds and
reliability of Cable.

'Nuff said.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread.
If you must reply via email, remove the obvious
from my email address before sending.
=======================================================
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:39:41 PM

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

In news:usj7d1hk6rj5p6cm4valils6n3d4efibib@4ax.com,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocrossNOSPAM@skycasters.net> typed:

> While DSL may be cheaper than Cable, it is SLOWER than cable.
> While
> most Cable speeds are routinely around 3-5mbps, DSL is almost
> uniformly 1.5mbps (or less -- many times it is less).


You're talking about download speeds. Upload speeds, on the other
hand, are often faster with DSL than cable. Admittedly, download
speeds are more important for most people, but I know at least
one person who changed from cable to DSL because he needed the
faster upload speed.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:05:51 PM

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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:59:00 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
<orthocrossNOSPAM@skycasters.net> wrote:


>While DSL may be cheaper than Cable, it is SLOWER than cable. While
>most Cable speeds are routinely around 3-5mbps, DSL is almost
>uniformly 1.5mbps (or less -- many times it is less). As an example,
>I was only 2000 feet from the DSLAM, yet my DSL transmissions speeds
>were ROUTINELY less than 1mbps (more often being 128-256kbps). This
>is only if you have the closest distance to the Phone Company. The
>further you are away from the Phone Company's DSLAM, the more the
>speed of transmission drops off. If you are at the maximum distance
>(10,000-15,000feet) from the DSLAM, that 1.5mb might drop to 128kbps.

If you're that close to the DSLAM you should be able to get 2.5mbps or
a bit higher with DSL.
!