Still no usb 2.0 support :(

[Ascii2]

Once again, please provide proof to back up what you say...its good to have reasonable means to backup your claims.

At the moment I am at a location where I do not have access to machines running Windows XP nor have prior evidence with me.

I can however provide information on how to collect the evidence for the proof. Those with greater facility to coolect the evidence may.

in a scenario such as this, where you argue security is the reason, and others argue against what you say

My argument has been functionality, not as much security.

 

[Antillian]

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4823800&postcount=14

All fallacy.
Not true. Without SP2, many of the latest security updates may not be on Windows Update., but has nothing to do with negligence. The Microsoft website has available for download individual hotfixes on the Microsoft website regardless of whether they would be listed on Windows Update. Although they have many similarities, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and Windows XP without Service Pack 2 are functionally different. Many updates for Windows XP with Service Pack 2 may not be necessary (and possibly contra-beneficial) for Windows XP without Service Pack 2; wherefore listing of unessesary updates may not be useful.

So what you're saying is, it's better to neglect one single huge update roll-up and download all of the hotfixes one by one? Wow, that's not time consuming at all! You're absolutely correct, sir! Yeah, tell that to some busy Enterprise IT Administrators, I'm quite sure you'll be laughed off the premises. Bottom line is, without SP2 it's not guaranteed you'll actually have problems, but I think we could all agree the average user would be better safe than sorry. That goes for everyone too. In this day and age good enough with security doesn't cut it, you've got to do all you can to make sure your system is secure. To neglect this is a serious folly in itself.

 

[Midnight Dream]

So what you're saying is, it's better to neglect one single huge update roll-up and download all of the hotfixes one by one? Wow, that's not time consuming at all! You're absolutely correct, sir! Yeah, tell that to some busy Enterprise IT Administrators, I'm quite sure you'll be laughed off the premises. Bottom line is, without SP2 it's not guaranteed you'll actually have problems, but I think we could all agree the average user would be better safe than sorry. That goes for everyone too. In this day and age good enough with security doesn't cut it, you've got to do all you can to make your system is secure. To neglect this is a serious folly in itself.

QFT. You can argue it all you want, Ascii2, but fact of the matter is still that the majority of the people here have agreed on the matter that it's worse to not upgrade to SP2 than it is to upgrade. Sure, in the beginning I could understand the worries. But that was what? August 30th 04. Over 2 years ago. Plus you can say that you get all the updates and hotfixes, but until you do install SP2, how do you know that you are not being skipped over on some?

And the notion that IE/OE is less secure than other mainstream software is not fallacy, its fact. Do any amount of research and you will find the same answers solidified all across the web. The only one's who won't openly admit it is Redmond, who hang on desperately to their dreams, while denying that they don't conform to standards (IE7 & CSS), and spreading rumors without supporting facts (Linux and Patents).

 

[Antillian]

Plus you can say that you get all the updates and hotfixes, but until you do install SP2, how do you know that you are not being skipped over on some?

I believe you are correct here.

 

[Ascii2]

So what you're saying is, it's better to neglect one single huge update roll-up and download all of the hotfixes one by one? Wow, that's not time consuming at all!

No to the question. I would disagree with the second statement.

My recommendation if Windows XP operating system is to be used would be to acquire, if not already present, Windows XP Service Pack 1, then other patches in batch.

I believe http://www.msfn.org/ has tools related to patching.

 

[Midnight Dream]

No to the question. I would disagree with the second statement.

My recommendation if Windows XP operating system is to be used would be to acquire, if not already present, Windows XP Service Pack 1, then other patches in batch.

I believe http://www.msfn.org/ has tools related to patching.

So, what you are saying is, instead of downloading SP2 and putting forward all those hot fixes and security patches that SP2 rolls together, you would prefer to download SP2 one patch and hot fix at a time, and install it that way? Oh, lets not forget the numerous restarts that would require, when you install a certain patch, and it wont let you install another until you restart.

But, lets think about your last statement, shall we?

My recommendation if Windows XP operating system is to be used would be to acquire, if not already present, Windows XP Service Pack 1, then other patches in batch.

Hmmm.....install SP1, and then install all the other patches in batch. But...wait, what's this? SP2 = SP1 + All other patches in one big batch.

Congratulations. You've just detailed how to install SP2. The hard way.

 

[Ascii2]

But...wait, what's this? SP2 = SP1 + All other patches in one big batch.

Not true. More acurate: SP2 = [SP1 hotfixes] + [post-SP1 patches prior to SP2] + [changes in fuctionality].

 

[Neuromancer]

I have been running SP since shortly after its release. Once I slipstreamed it ont o a XP cd I have had 1 issue. But hacking the tcpip.sys file fixed that. (limits you to 10 half open TCP connections).

As for the functionality that has changed. AS already asked can you please post a link to this? And no just quote yourself as the source? I am completely willing to believe that things are differnet in sp2 vice sp1a. But would like somekind of evidence of this and to even see if it effects me at all.

 

[ErikD]

Yes, SP2 does change the way IE and OE handle file downloads. Is that such a big price to pay for more security?

Also we need to be really clear as to what environment we are talking about. Enterprise? Alternate browsers are not really an option and OE isn't used at all (full Outlook is). Also most large enterprises would have a WSUS doing updates, so the work differences between SP2 vs. SP1 plus all individual updates is negligable in terms of work to do.

Personal? Well do what you like. Run no SP, and whatever browser you like. It doesn't really matter much. The fact remians that your systme will never be fully up to date and secure as possible without installing SP2. That is just the way it is. Has nothing to do with decreasing functionality.

I would agree though that some recent WGA updates were a disaster and a PITA. But that is a whole different story.

 

[Ascii2]

I have been running SP since shortly after its release. Once I slipstreamed it ont o a XP cd I have had 1 issue. But hacking the tcpip.sys file fixed that. (limits you to 10 half open TCP connections).

I wonder if doing mod like you claimed to have done send Windows Vista into lock down mode if the mod is done on Windows Vista.

But would like somekind of evidence of this and to even see if it effects me at all.

I shall prepare a procedure that should make evident what I consider the most undesirebly critical fuctionality change in SP2.

 

[hafa]

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=4823800&postcount=14

All fallacy.

<sarcasm>

Right. SP2 is a curse and the active-x is Microsoft's best product ever along with OE...

</sarcasm>

Sorry, Ascii2, but the documentation of security issues realted to IE is simply too overwhelming to be ignored. Even with IE7, everyone from PC World to the folks on this forum will tell you that active-x is the bane of the internet.

Regarding functionality which is lost as a result of SP2, please provide specific evidence outside of apocryphal statements; I'm sure that we would all review it with great interest.

 

[Ascii2]

Yes, SP2 does change the way IE and OE handle file downloads. Is that such a big price to pay for more security?

Yes. Also, incease in "securirty" (if you want to call it that) do to change may be negligable.

 

[Antillian]

I wonder if doing mod like you claimed to have done send Windows Vista into lock down mode if the mod is done on Windows Vista.

I shall prepare a procedure that should make evident what I consider the most undesirebly critical fuctionality change in SP2.

The first statement, that's ridiculous and not even an issue here.

To the second statement, you have been asked time and time again to provide concrete proof and sources to this outlandish claim and you have yet to deliver. Furthermore, your arguments have been struck down over and over again by myself and other people. It has been established that SP2 is in fact a good thing for security and any sort of functionality change in Windows XP is marginal at best. You continue to toy with this idealistic notion that SP2 is a horrible thing and somehow makes your system more insecure, and as I previously stated, you have yet to deliver any evidence of this. It has also been stated that downloading and installing individual hotfixes and using alternative means to install them is both unnecessary and could possibly harm the system. Enterprise Admins would do well not to shy away from things like WSUS, just like it's best for home users to use Windows Update. Any Microsoft support person would tell you that. Also, what if something goes wrong with those "alternative" services, you think Microsoft is going to help you fix the problem? I thought not. Bottom line, SP2 is a good thing, for the Enterprise, for the user, for everyone. Until you provide any concrete proof otherwise, which I seriously doubt you can, that's how it will stand.

 

[Midnight Dream]

The first statement, that's ridiculous and not even an issue here.

To the second statement, you have been asked time and time again to provide concrete proof and sources to this outlandish claim and you have yet to deliver. Furthermore, your arguments have been struck down over and over again by myself and other people. It has been established that SP2 is in fact a good thing for security and any sort of functionality change in Windows XP is marginal at best. You continue to toy with this idealistic notion that SP2 is a horrible thing and somehow makes your system more insecure, and as I previously stated, you have yet to deliver any evidence of this. It has also been stated that downloading and installing individual hotfixes and using alternative means to install them is both unnecessary and could possibly harm the system. Enterprise Admins would do well not to shy away from things like WSUS, just like it's best for home users to use Windows Update. Any Microsoft support person would tell you that. Also, what if something goes wrong with those "alternative" services, you think Microsoft is going to help you fix the problem? I thought not. Bottom line, SP2 is a good thing, for the Enterprise, for the user, for everyone. Until you provide any concrete proof otherwise, which I seriously doubt you can, that's how it will stand.

Agreed

 

[Neuromancer]

I wonder if doing mod like you claimed to have done send Windows Vista into lock down mode if the mod is done on Windows Vista.

<snip>

Nope Not if you do it correctly. You need to be an admin and take control of certain system files.. (its not a simple click and replace... its pretty tedious) but you can do it. I had to do it for something... I forget what.

Although that was on a Beta I do not know if they increased security for RTM...

 

[Ascii2]

I have been running SP since shortly after its release. Once I slipstreamed it ont o a XP cd I have had 1 issue. But hacking the tcpip.sys file fixed that. (limits you to 10 half open TCP connections).

As for the functionality that has changed. AS already asked can you please post a link to this? And no just quote yourself as the source? I am completely willing to believe that things are differnet in sp2 vice sp1a. But would like somekind of evidence of this and to even see if it effects me at all.

I found an article affirming what I was posting. The link is:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/iewacky.php3​

The article linked seems to have been written while Windows Vista was still in beta. The article seems Anti-Internet Explorer; however, the information about the functionality changes is true.

If only what has been discussed in this thread is to be relevant, start reading at "Explanation of Warnings When Files Are Downloaded and/or Opened" and stop reading at the end of section "Fixing XP SP2 "security improvement" Nags". Some other information not in the range may be interesting or useful, but not relevant or redundant.

Also note, there is a download for a useful Visual Basic Script under the "Fixing XP SP2 "security improvement" Nags" section. Although it seems like the nagging on Alternate Data Stream-ed file may be disabled, appending of Alternate Data Streams may still occur (I may hypothesizing, I have not tested). Microsoft Corporation does not publicly document the disabling of the nagging.