Don't bash microsoft - after all, your happy to use their products, but when they find an issue and immediately fix it, you whine like aircraft engine on take off.
They shouldn't release an update and just do what other companies do - cover their tracks instead! Make out the vulnerablities are hackers onlym, at least no-one would moan........well - until all their bank accounts were empty, there computers were knackered, and the FBI were investigating you for links to terror networks funding!!!

Must admit - I am suprised they find an issue so quick, but when they are trying to make something that is safe when you access the internet without anyone getting hold of your stuff WHILST making sure you can still get on the net and enjoy features etc etc - well of course there will be issues. Remember - its not that it won't work, its that there is something that someone can exploit to damage/harm or steal stuff from. You curse MS but not the hackers/virus makers?

Edited by - Chips on 8/29/2004 2:34:46 PM

Do you guys think that the microsoft people realy care?


Purplexed.......................AZAR

Care about what? The public? The program?

A question for anyone. Is there an operating system out there without ANY flaws, be it security or other?

@Fd,

The odds are that there are a few with next to no flaws for the intended purposes of a specific OS. But neither you nor I would have access to them as they would be installations used by governments and their military. I think it is impossible to create one with absolutely no flaws as they are, still, the creations of humans.

If we are going to look at total count of publicly recorded flaws or weaknesses, I think that the list of emergency security updates needed for Windows far outnumber by a large number those in MacIntosh, Linux or Unix for that matter.

I believe that at least a good half of those flaws are accounted for simply by the fact that Windows is the largest target out there, with the most predominant user base, anyone interested in wreaking havoc to the greatest number would be silly not to pick on Windows.... it goes with Windows' territory as the #1 OS.

Were Mac or the other OSes equally broad based in number of users, it is likely that their list of flaws would be multiplied by a significant factor too. The question remains, however, whether the other 50% of Windows' flaws also are attributable to malicious hackers looking to do anything to mess up Windows or sloppy in-shop design.

<Edit>

Also, if you ever talk to mainframe techies of yore, they will tell you that OSes on those giants were not rated by the length of time between crashes, if any because all of them sayed up practically forever. Needless to say, main framers were accustomed to runtimes of multiples of months or years before a system crash, if that.

Edited by - Indy11 on 8/30/2004 7:02:06 AM

Im reminded of a quote from BOFH:
'it dosent matter how many spare power cables, zip ties or LEDs it has, if the power goes out, you still lose your net, and you get lots of angry phonecalls!'
Ill have to ask Mal down at school how long the Primary Net server has been running without being shut off. Its a windows server 2000 with SP 3 and ISA from what i could tell...

Final - Indy has pretty much covered it. Linux/Unix are targeted far less often than Windows, and thus are more "secure". However if Linux or Unix were attacked as much as Windows is now, then they would probably be found to have many holes.

SP2 installed, so far so good. I am however, not using windows fire wall. I am staying with Norton. More detailes as programs get tested. The free disk was a help too.

*Shakes head* You'll be sorry...

Not yet. The popup blocker is in good form, and I have run Red Faction with no problems. Doesn't run any slower or anything.

I've tried SP2 on some XP machines I've been doing for others and tbh it seems fine. that's the proper 76mb one off MS Update and not the buggy 266mb beta.

*note* if you have a modified boot.ini file, as you would if you're using a customised bootscreen, SP2 installation will come up with an error that isn't in the MS knowledge base (why, i don't know) but no matter. edit your boot.ini file in the operating systems section to have a standard kernel line, reboot, run SP2 install, everythings fine. The re-edit your boot.ini back to what it was before.

I'm still not fussed about putting it on my own pc though - fromwhat i can see, apart from miscellaneous bug fixes, patches and security updates, the major addition of SP2 is a functioning firewall and av alerter, known as the Security Centre. As I sit behind a hardware and a software firewall, have no open shares, use strong passwords, and scan every attempted communication with my PC unless it comes from one of my other 3 secure pcs, I feel no imperative need to try it out. Who needs or would use 2 software firewalls?

From what I understand, 2 firewalls can get in the way of each other. At one time, I ran Black Ice and Norton. It was only 2 weeks, but they did co-exicist. After SP2 intalled, a screen popped up giving me the choice of which Firewall I wanted to run, win or norton and it searched for which AV I had as well. It has impressed me so far, but it will get a test this weekend as I try different games on it.

Question:

(Now that my work PC has been moved over to WXP (SP1 only, btw), and as I have no administrator rights granted to me by my IT dept., I am unable to check out the windows update site. And I don't want to wait to post until I get home)

If you do install SP2 and decide that you don't like it.....

1) I assume you can't just uninstall it so you'd have to reinstall WinXP

2) Will the latest SP1 package be available from the MS update sight or
will SP2 be the only update left available?

3) And if you never installed SP1, will SP2 load anyway? That's how I remember it working in the past.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/3/2004 11:04:57 AM

Indy, when I installed it from the disk, it made a back up copy of the files for me. I also did a restore point as well and it shows up in the "Remove programs" part of the control panel.