PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP SP2


Sir Penguin
12-08-2004, 05:29:15
Download the executable here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A

And if anyone says, "Well, it doesn't have anything I want, so I'm not going to use it," then they are absolute idiots and should be given organized brain damage to keep them from owning anything that is connected to a network.

That doesn't preclude people like Venom, Lurker, and Darkstar who don't say that from being idiots.

SP

The Mad Monk
12-08-2004, 07:19:19
I'll do so, if I ever connect my new computer to the internet.

Deacon
12-08-2004, 23:20:38
0\/\/n3D PCz are a major source of spam.

Sir Penguin
13-08-2004, 04:25:20
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I'll do so, if I ever connect my new computer to the internet.
Order your free copy on CD. :)

SP

No longer Trippin
13-08-2004, 04:53:55
Long as you don't run anything serious your okay. Seems like they only left out the corporate clients when setting the firewall up. Quite a few companies (including MS itself) have their top tier Corporate editions of whatnot having problems but the cheaper and maybe just slightly stripped version is working just fine.

Darkstar
13-08-2004, 06:15:49
We've been commmanded at work to not install it. It breaks too many things, apparently.

The Mad Monk
13-08-2004, 06:58:37
Asher set up a similar thread on Poly:

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120150

Makes you wonder why he even bothers.






























:lol:

Sir Penguin
13-08-2004, 08:36:00
Originally posted by Darkstar
We've been commmanded at work to not install it. It breaks too many things, apparently.
NASA coders don't know how to fix buffer overflows?

SP

Deacon
13-08-2004, 22:28:12
It could be a case of MS changing undocumented features, treating them as bugs.

Darkstar
14-08-2004, 04:08:47
So far, it's got to do with lots of changes from what we've heard.

Also, the way we record our timecards is through a java pop up, which SP2 kills. And our IT people cannot figure out how to let that run but still kill everything else. And HR does not want to go back to paper time sheets. ;)

No longer Trippin
14-08-2004, 05:06:44
It blocks TONS of shit, that is the problem. HP, IBM, and several other large companies have already issued orders not to install SP2. The cure seems worse than the disease, at least for the corporate world.

Now they just need to stop Malware.

Asher
14-08-2004, 05:30:11
Actually it's standard fare for IBM to tell its employees not to install the service packs right away. Hell, they don't even like you installing any patches until they okay them through the internal security people.

We have a lot of kludgey software that's very sensitive.

We don't have NASA's timecard problem, mainly because IBM's timecard runs off a VM with software that has a cpoyright date of 1962 (I'm serious). :D

No longer Trippin
15-08-2004, 05:43:59
44 years. Damn.

Asher
15-08-2004, 06:15:49
The timecard software is from 1962, the techsupport/problem management software is '67.

They've tried to replace both about half a dozen times, but everyone keeps going back to the originals for whatever reason.

King_Ghidra@home
15-08-2004, 10:51:08
having done a bit of testing far too late at work it looks like SP2 is going to give our software some major problems - i think we'll be advising our customers not to install it

zmama
15-08-2004, 20:29:19
Microsoft lists apps affected by SP2

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&e=1&u=/zd/20040815/tc_zd/133489

Asher
15-08-2004, 21:25:33
The fun part of SP2 is it identifies poorly written software. If programs were all written to spec and guidelines, they have no issues.

MDA
16-08-2004, 11:59:42
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3561430.stm

Jesus, why do they care if people download a free patch from a file sharing service? - its free, and people that use those things should understand the risks in getting it from a second source.

Lurker
16-08-2004, 14:48:44
I'm currently using Norton firewall. Is there any reason to prefer that over the SP2 firewall? Vice versa?

King_Ghidra
16-08-2004, 16:36:40
Originally posted by Asher
The fun part of SP2 is it identifies poorly written software. If programs were all written to spec and guidelines, they have no issues.

considering micorosoft themselves have created a lot of poorly written software why should we believe SP2 is free from it itself?

Darkstar
16-08-2004, 18:05:18
"Poorly written software"...

I love it when people say that. There is no real standards for software. Just passing styles/fads. It's all Art, or at least, twisted art. :D So what was "Good Practices" in 1974 or 1994, is now "Shit" and what was "Shit" then, is "Good Practicies" now.

Ash is busy pissing on anything that SP2 breaks, but I doubt in 7 years from now, his code will be anything but "Shit". It's just how the industry goes. ;)

A lot of Microsoft's own "well written" code doesn't work with SP2. So that implicates SP2 as being "poorly written". But hey, let's not confuse reality with politico-religion. :)

MDA
16-08-2004, 19:02:43
Well, we're not using it at FDA right away - it doesn't play nice with "some FDA systems and software".

The SS will make a final determination at a future date (Shared Services).

Sir Penguin
16-08-2004, 20:21:41
The list of apps SP2 breaks is mostly made up of programs that have trouble with the new firewall. The firewall is fairly well implemented, but is missing some major features that should be there (for technological reasons, if not legal reasons). Problems with the software MS listed can usually be fixed by some manual configuring of the firewall. I suspect that unless DEP is enabled for all software, most of the poorly-written software will get a pass if it doesn't have firewall problems.

SP

Asher
16-08-2004, 22:52:12
Originally posted by Darkstar
"I love it when people say that. There is no real standards for software.
There sure as hell is for Windows, MS publishes guidelines to follow. If apps were properly accessing and setting up the internet according to the guidelines, there'd be no incompatibilities with the Firewall.

You're part of the MSDN, aren't you? Look into the Microsoft Press books...

A lot of Microsoft's own "well written" code doesn't work with SP2. So that implicates SP2 as being "poorly written". But hey, let's not confuse reality with politico-religion. :)
I can only think of one, and it's an obscure piece of business software. Care to name the others?

Sir Penguin
17-08-2004, 00:56:26
The Arabic and Hebrew versions of Halo.

SP

No longer Trippin
17-08-2004, 03:36:05
So MS can't write code, that is what your admitting Asher. It doesn't matter how obscure the program is, it is for business, which means it should be written "correctly" to begin with.

So Symantec Corporate Edition and McAfee Corporate editions are both poorly written (not to mention competition)? I find that hard to believe when the retail version is okay even though McAfee offers dubious protection, Symantec is regarded quite highly. Smells like BS if they are claiming poor coding.

Here is a nice example of XP's firewall in action (or inaction I could say), http://www.overclockers.com/tips00639/ Doesn't recognize one very popular (and competing) piece of software that you'd think the firewall should recognize. And here is the incomplete page from MS of software they know doesn't work as of now http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842242&product=windowsxpsp2;

Quite a few of the programs which have issues also compete with MS at some level in the corporate world. Happy coincidence perhaps? :rolleyes:

And MS never changes those specifications at all? Bullshit. No use coding for an ever changing and unpredictable "rule book" that doesn't matter unless MS makes it matter (as with SP2).

Asher
17-08-2004, 03:56:33
Originally posted by No longer Trippin
So MS can't write code, that is what your admitting Asher. It doesn't matter how obscure the program is, it is for business, which means it should be written "correctly" to begin with.
How many tens of thousands of programmers for MS employ? Many are bound to write crap code.

So Symantec Corporate Edition and McAfee Corporate editions are both poorly written (not to mention competition)? I find that hard to believe when the retail version is okay even though McAfee offers dubious protection, Symantec is regarded quite highly. Smells like BS if they are claiming poor coding.
The coding is likely fine, the problem is they're designed very poorly. Believe it or not, the consumer versions of the AntiVirus programs are more modern and better designed, the "corporate" versions are kludgey hacks of "tried and true" (read: old) software that corporations were already used to.

Quite a few of the programs which have issues also compete with MS at some level in the corporate world. Happy coincidence perhaps? :rolleyes:
Errmm...who doesn't compete with MS? What a stunning argument you have put together.

And MS never changes those specifications at all? Bullshit. No use coding for an ever changing and unpredictable "rule book" that doesn't matter unless MS makes it matter (as with SP2).
The specs haven't been changed for Windows XP since 2001. Hey, when was Windows XP launched? Was it 2001?

TV4Fun
17-08-2004, 04:01:39
Originally posted by Asher
The fun part of SP2 is it identifies poorly written software. If programs were all written to spec and guidelines, they have no issues. http://www.citlink.net/~ecro1/laughing-smiley-018.gif That's a good one! Hey you know your avatar goes really really fast in Netscape. It looks cool, you should change it so it goes that fast in IE too.

Asher
17-08-2004, 04:28:59
Ever since Windows XP was published, there have been guidelines -- that have not changed -- on how programs should be accessing the internet. Many programs, notably CRAP ones or obsolete ones, use deprecated methods that still exist merely for backwards compatibility. Lo and behold, MS starts locking down Windows, and all these old piece of shit/poorly designed programs start breaking because their deprecated access methods are locked down by the firewall.

Asher
17-08-2004, 04:30:05
The reason why IBM is saying don't install SP2 to employees, BTW, is because the new, more secure IE breaks many of the intranet apps. They're going to install a customized version of SP2 next month, rather than the MS version.

No longer Trippin
17-08-2004, 05:14:26
I have ran the corporate version, I probably even have a mirror with symantec corporate on it. It is different, but it works all the same. The fact that the firewall is mainly a business ideal since SC failed when people broke 2003 and the fact that it doesn't work with business software speaks very poorly of MS grasp of it's market, or rather whom it is marketting to. Joe Sixpack doesn't understand or care about a firewall, and given time, will break it or undermine it in not knowing so quickly that locking windows up is moot until the OS itself doesn't need locking. Patching the problem doesn't fix the underlying causes. Not to mention many of those programs do need such legacy methods as not every company can afford the latest and greatest - though MS seems to be doing a push off the cliff effort to make them get it though. Do they need more money to buy back more stock or something?

Your saying that since MS employs a ton of people they have a license to write bad code. Well I'm sure some of the companies which have products which made the list also employ quite a few people (not nearly as many, even combined I'd imagine), but still, that is quite a few, so can they not also accidently write bad code? Oh wait, they can't, only MS is infallible in Asher's universe.

TV4Fun: It goes fast in Netscape because it is a poorly programmed application. :)

Sir Penguin
17-08-2004, 05:31:35
Actually, Asher said that MS was the fallible one, and that the third-party developers are the ones who should be infallible. :)

Which is true, if not totally fair to the third-party people. MS has a massive piece of software that they have to write to work on hundreds of thousands of different hardware configurations, and with hundreds of thousands of different pieces of software. Each software company only has to write one application or suite that only has to work with a few others. Kind of like a teacher having to learn a few dozen student names, but each student only having to learn the teacher's name.

With something as complex and user-friendly as XP, there are bound to be bugs. On the other hand, when a developing house makes a program that requires legacy Windows functionality that has been deprecated and slated to be restricted by SP2, then it's the developers' fault if they don't change those parts of the program. It's not necessarily poor design, but poor maintenance.

SP

Asher
17-08-2004, 05:33:23
MS is certainly not infallible.

You're just being stupid. :)

1) It doesn't matter if Joe Sixpack doesn't understand or care about the Firewall, that's the idea. It will prevent most attacks due to his stupidity
2) Corporations who don't want SP2 deployed push out a special patch which prevents autoupdates from occuring (IBM has done this)
3) Microsoft supplies the sourcecode and assists the companies that they "don't understand" in deploying customized versions of SP2 if they need it

In short, once again you're as clueless as ever. Either trolling, or genuinely stupid.

What do you do again? IT monkey?

Darkstar
17-08-2004, 21:42:39
Originally posted by Asher
There sure as hell is for Windows, MS publishes guidelines to follow. If apps were properly accessing and setting up the internet according to the guidelines, there'd be no incompatibilities with the Firewall.

You're part of the MSDN, aren't you? Look into the Microsoft Press books...

I can only think of one, and it's an obscure piece of business software. Care to name the others?

MS publishes multiple guidelines. Which set you want to follow? You realize that several conflict with each other?

Currently, Microsoft is going backwards on about 40% of the issues, while progressing on about 30% more (security, sanity checks for all input, etc).

You might as well jump down off your hobby horse. I've been in MSDN probably since before you were born, Ash. The guidelines, like almost everything in software, are a moving target and change with the fads. There was a time when you never worried who'd access you, because only legitimate users with legitimate requests would slam against you. There was a time when it was the style to build in trojan gate keepers/back doors, to simplify life for the designers and maintainers because the odds of an illegal hack attempt from outside your business was greater then the chances that everyone on the planet would be struck dead by lightning at the same time.

Right now, MS states that Microsoft Visual Studio .Net (All editions) are broken by the SP. And not just because of Firewall issues. Whoopsie! That's not exactly a obscure piece of business software. Other big ticket items from Microsoft will also break.

Software has only one measurable objective... does it do what the customers want and how well? Everything else is purely a matter of style.

Darkstar
17-08-2004, 21:46:35
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
The Arabic and Hebrew versions of Halo.

SP

:lol:

More then just those games, SP. Lots of them. Mostly because of firewall issues though. Although many games use a common page technique that is blocked because it's such a common technique for worms, and those can only be enabled by disabling certain SP features outright.

I suspect that many intra-net apps fail for the same reason. But I'm just pulling guesses out of my guess-hole on that. ;) Common practices are common practices, though, so it's a fair bet. :D

Darkstar
17-08-2004, 21:59:50
Trip, its shitty code all around. That's the point. But pre-SP2, the OS by default is open. After SP2, it's more closed and restricted. Joe Sixpack is just going to be pissed his FPS doesn't let him blast his buddies online, and find out he just has to turn off a few check boxes and reboot to go back to blasting his friends. Of course, he's just disabled all that new security he just put in, so he's back to an open house, but no biggie. With SP2 out, the new stuff coming out with try to play in the rules MS has set. But all the old business stuff, much of it will never play by post SP2 rules. So all those corps will continue to run pre-SP2 (because most will just never deploy custom SP2... too expensive and time consuming. Watch!). End result... the majority of windows XP systems in the corporate world will remain vulnerable. But the home users on permanent connect dial ups will slowly become more secure. Which is who is being targetted to be made more secure.

Moderate Corps can pay people to keep up their networks. Firewalls, email Exchanges, web servers, etc... but home users, on average, never upgrade their OS nor patch their machine. When their machine breaks, they buy a new machine and get the latest as provided by their OEM. And that's what the post SP2 world is aimed at... plugging the home markets security holes, and getting them used to having a few security features built in (cause they don't bother to go out and buy them).

Asher
18-08-2004, 00:08:05
Originally posted by Darkstar
[B]MS publishes multiple guidelines. Which set you want to follow? You realize that several conflict with each other?
I haven't found anything conflicting...can you reference two books that tell different ways on accessing the internet through programs in XP? "urlmon" is the official method, one that works extremely well with SP2...

You might as well jump down off your hobby horse. I've been in MSDN probably since before you were born, Ash.
All the more reason to dismiss you as being an old man, out of date with the lastest generation of software. ;)

Sir Penguin
18-08-2004, 00:10:25
Oh come on, I'm sure that the Windows 98 and Windows XP guidelines conflict.

SP

Asher
18-08-2004, 00:12:35
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
Oh come on, I'm sure that the Windows 98 and Windows XP guidelines conflict.

SP
Absolutely, but I was talking about Windows XP. It's understandable if old software doesn't work, but if new software doesn't work, and the guidelines have been out for 3 years, there's no excuse.

Darkstar:
BTW, last I heard, only the remote debugger from VS.NET (2002) was broken, not "Visual Studio .NET (all versoins)" like you said -- just the remote debugger, and just in 2002. And that was likely developed at the same time/before the guidelines were published. :p The remote debugger works fine in 2003.

Sir Penguin
18-08-2004, 00:36:23
100-0.

SP

Darkstar
18-08-2004, 00:44:34
Ash, you seem to be presuming a world where the only thing running on XP is XP specific and therefore developed under XP guidelines. And that's not the real world.

It's the notice I got from MS. Don't install SP2 if I want to continue developing using any version of Visual Studio .Net. Visual Studio was mentioned as broken in the press buzz on News.Com as well, but the details were sketchy.

At work, SP2 is not a personal issue for me. Our department, supporting some actual Win 95 legacy applications, has recently gotten most of our machines up to Win 2K Pro or Server. I was supposed to have upgraded my development workstation to Win XP Pro (and be our departments trailblazing sacrifice to the new XP gods), but I haven't had sufficent down-time to do so. By the time I will, I expect that what works in what configurations under SP2 and how to make the broken stuff work will be much better known.

Asher
18-08-2004, 00:52:00
Originally posted by Darkstar
[B]It's the notice I got from MS. Don't install SP2 if I want to continue developing using any version of Visual Studio .Net. Visual Studio was mentioned as broken in the press buzz on News.Com as well, but the details were sketchy.
That's different than MS' website says, and what I got from MS.

Try reading the email more closely.

No longer Trippin
18-08-2004, 06:11:21
DS: MS wants XP running XP apps all the time. Damn the cost. Your right about the firewall. U2k3 doesn't work with it, quite a few play that. If MS can't get there highly touted .Net software working that they love to talk so much about, the patch seems counterproductive seeing as everything will go that way. F'ing ATi is already going to be releasing it's next driver .Net. That's an extra 23 meg download I don't need to a 40 meg driver set. I wonder if SP2 is going to break ATi's new d/l software now. FTPing for drivers again? yay :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised it is different Asher. You get MS special brownose edition. :)

wag the dog?

MDA
18-08-2004, 12:44:10
So are they going to delay Duke Nukem: Forever to make it compatible with SP2?

Funkodrom
18-08-2004, 13:40:05
Lots of issues here too, can't install.

Asher
18-08-2004, 16:43:44
Originally posted by No longer Trippin
I'm not surprised it is different Asher. You get MS special brownose edition. :)

wag the dog?
MS' website specifically says only the original VS.NET's remote debugger is affected, and even that is bypassed by manually opening some ports in the firewall (and I'd hope any developer using the Remote Debugger can figure out how to open ports)

Darkstar
18-08-2004, 21:32:09
You mean those ports that are blocked to protect VS.Net from Slammer and it's children, Ash?

I have read what MS sends me. They send me tons of crap due to the various mailing lists. VC++. VC#, Office, Office Developer, VS.Net, blah blah blah. I don't think they've unified on what they are telling people.

Trip, I doubt it's all of .Net that's broken. Just some older stuff. ;) Doesn't matter much, as .Net is changing significantly in 2005 release. Which is about to pop out of MS at any time.

No longer Trippin
19-08-2004, 05:07:13
Oh great, sounds like ATi's 3.9 (not beta's) are going to be the live fire test of the it. :rolleyes:

Noisy
19-08-2004, 20:36:42
Originally posted by Asher
MS is certainly not infallible.

You're just being stupid. :)

1) It doesn't matter if Joe Sixpack doesn't understand or care about the Firewall, that's the idea. It will prevent most attacks due to his stupidity

<snip> :D

Explain again why firewalls are needed in the first place?

Sir Penguin
19-08-2004, 21:33:19
To stop a cracker (or, to delay a serious cracker) from getting into your network from outside. That is desired because it keeps your computer safe from stuff that will break it or give a performance hit, and because it keeps everyone else safe from trojans and zombies and things that can break other networks.

I'm using cracker as a very generous term for any unauthorized or undesirable access.

SP

Darkstar
20-08-2004, 20:22:59
Well, Ash should keep in mind that Microsoft is the company that published the gender choice for all Spanish versions of their OS as "Not disclosed", "male", "bitch".

Just one of their many millions (billions? trillions?) of blunders.

Currently, I'm ticked off that the index CD for the Aug 2004 MSDN is actually July CD with the words "August 2004" printed on it. Bastards should have checked that before shipping. ;). And their on-line site now has a mix of September and August and July 2004 on it, so it makes it a tad interesting in figuring out what is the current set of disks subscribers should have. Luckily, September 2004 should be popping into my mail box soon...