Old 7th August 2004, 07:01   #1
Rellik
Major Dude
 
Rellik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: localhost
Posts: 1,099
Windows XP SP2 released

http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...,95101,00.html

Most importantly it addresses several security issues

Quote:
The company said the easiest way for users to get SP2 is to turn on the Automatic Update feature in Windows XP. Microsoft will start pushing out SP2 within days, according to Matt Pilla, a senior product manager in the Windows division. Corporate users, however, typically do extensive testing before distributing service packs to users.

At about 265MB, the full SP2 package is no small download. But Microsoft, in a prepared statement, said it expects the average file size to be much smaller because of the "smart download" technology that installs only what the user needs. That means users who already have SP1 and have regularly updated their computers with patches shouldn't need to worry about the full 265MB.
So get updating, but backup your data first.
Rellik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 12:12   #2
THPSFG
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: :morF
Posts: 79
good thing i just got a dvd dual layer burner
now where can i get some dual layer dvds!!!!
THPSFG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 13:07   #3
mark e
Major Dude
 
mark e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,117
got it, and its not faster :/
mark e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 15:26   #4
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
If you absolutely can't wait until Tuesday, here's the MD5 checksum for the file so you can be sure you've got the right copy one way or another:

WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 15:39   #5
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
mark e, you don't have the full SP2. You have the beta, whether you have RC1 or RC2, I don't know.

RC1 I noticed no difference, but right now I'm running SP2 RC2, and believe it or not my computer actually does notice a speed change. It's because now it by default disables some of those extra un-needed services. Either way, I like it.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 16:10   #6
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I've been using the betas and RCs of SP2 for a while now. It's really, really good. Security is now being taken seriously - and the firewall behaves like a far better integrated version of ZoneAlarm. Third-party firewalls are gonna have to try harder now.

It also has a "security centre", that did many things, including checking the database of my (third party) virus checker, and complaining about automatic updates being disabled (a very valid point for the common user of XP.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 16:22   #7
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
http://iamnotageek.com/articles.php?aid=103

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 16:53   #8
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
That's not a concern for me, or most people who don't install spyware and things.

Hell, my linux box doesn't drop outgoing traffic, and it's the primary firewall for my whole flat.

The way they describe the firewall is the default operation of most third-party firewalls - I'm curious to know what their actual problem with it is.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 17:03   #9
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
Not a concern for me either, just I'd post that for some people here. Everyone has their own ideas on how things work.

And for you ZoneAlarm users, it does work fine with the XP firewall running next to it. On RC1 people complained you couldn't run ZA with the XP firewall at the same time, in RC2 that's fixed.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 18:04   #10
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Sounds a lot like duplication of effort to me, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 18:49   #11
mark e
Major Dude
 
mark e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,117
wiseguy

Quote:
Originally posted by LollipopLustKil
mark e, you don't have the full SP2. You have the beta, whether you have RC1 or RC2, I don't know.

RC1 I noticed no difference, but right now I'm running SP2 RC2, and believe it or not my computer actually does notice a speed change. It's because now it by default disables some of those extra un-needed services. Either way, I like it.
I have build 2180, which is the latest (from yesterday) and its RTM
mark e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 20:31   #12
ctn|chrisw
Forum King
 
ctn|chrisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 3,309
It seems a lot improved for me, and it IS faster. Course not even god's own power boost will help you if you have minimal ram. Took tons of screenshots out of boredom: http://www.ircplayhouse.us/forums/in...p?showtopic=87
I never noticed the wireless setup wizzard before so I assume its new?


ctn|chrisw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 20:34   #13
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
Yes, that's new.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2004, 21:56   #14
cyu
Major Dude
 
cyu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: in front of my pc
Posts: 1,617
Send a message via AIM to cyu Send a message via Yahoo to cyu
I also have sp2 2180 installed and I didn't notice any speed differences. I mean, why would it be faster? All it added was security fixes.

Edit: Oh yeah, I already tweaked the settings on my previous SP1a build, so thats probably why I didn't notice any speed boosts.
cyu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 06:37   #15
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by ctn|chrisw
I never noticed the wireless setup wizzard before so I assume its new?
Wireless connection stuff has improved immensely as well, yeah.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 17:48   #16
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
http://filemirrors.com/search.src?fi...size=278920704

This is the MSDN version and as u can see it is only about 273 MB in size, as this is the network install that does not have the SDK like MSDN does.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2004, 18:33   #17
protegechris
Forum Queen
 
protegechris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,635
cant install windows updates on this computer, but I'm not saying why

I'm assuming they did some work to the icf since you had posted pics, but they wont display for me, what have they changed?

yeah, i'm back.
protegechris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 00:17   #18
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
neowin has some download links.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 09:17   #19
mark e
Major Dude
 
mark e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,117
I'm really waiting that, when that sp2 bullshits somethng - a big security hole or smthng. it will happen for sure
mark e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 09:27   #20
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
what are checksums?
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 14:53   #21
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Numbers calculated from a file. Basically a program goes through a file, and uses the data in it to calculate a big number. Now, if you download a file, and use the same program (or method) to calculate a checksum of it, if they match, they're almost definately the same file.

Making sense?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 17:45   #22
devils night
Senior Member
 
devils night's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: your mama
Posts: 306
well I for one will not be downloading it right away. i am going to see if it causes any problems for people first Just like SP1 broke alot of computers

Proud Winamp user since 1997
(Winamp 1.006)
devils night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2004, 17:56   #23
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally posted by protegechris
cant install windows updates on this computer, but I'm not saying why

I'm assuming they did some work to the icf since you had posted pics, but they wont display for me, what have they changed?
I had the same problem until I installed the SP1a redist.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2004, 18:17   #24
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
You do know that if you have a pirated version of SP1, it will work with SP2 as well right?

SP2 Final running on this computer, working fine. Came to me through Automatic Updates.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2004, 19:11   #25
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Theoretically. There's been a few more codes blacklisted but as far as I know not many.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2004, 22:24   #26
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
SP2 is going to confuse the hell out of the unexperienced computer user since it takes services that have always been set one way and flips them.

That's Microsoft's solution to shitty code - just firewall it in. How long you think before the next security update afer 90 + mb of code is changed. I give it no more than 14 days.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th August 2004, 01:55   #27
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Numbers calculated from a file. Basically a program goes through a file, and uses the data in it to calculate a big number. Now, if you download a file, and use the same program (or method) to calculate a checksum of it, if they match, they're almost definately the same file.

Making sense?
Yes, thanks.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 08:29   #28
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Lol, first "critical" security issue with SP2 has already been found.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 12:49   #29
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Lol, first "critical" security issue with SP2 has already been found.
LOLZ0RZZZ M$ SUCKZORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11321322!"!"£¬!!

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 15:40   #30
Smeggle
Just Strolling By
(Major Dude)
 
Smeggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: A Long Winding Road.....
Posts: 3,250
fits of Lauhter ensues...

*YawnS* Told u so

microsoft SP2 security Flaws Identified


ROFLMFAO

Music is Life, Love and Happiness :|: Life is Music. Serren - 1985 - 2005
Religion? Religion is a Blasphemy against humanity - From the film What the Bleep do we know

siggy link So stumbling? whats it all about
Smeggle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 19:17   #31
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
As I said in the other thread on the subject, Smeggle, those are very, very minor.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 21:22   #32
LollipopLustKil
Insomniac
(Forum King)
 
LollipopLustKil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,033
Send a message via AIM to LollipopLustKil
As for the list floating around of "broken" programs with SP2, those aren't real either. The only thing you need to do is let them through the firewall and they work fine.

Scotty Doesn't Know
LollipopLustKil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 22:01   #33
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Here's what's insane. Microsoft releases SP 2. Although a move in the right direction it's also a move in the wrong.

The Right) Finally MS is thinking about protecting the end user. Some of the changes do harden the actual OS but very little. The OS still contains the same bugs but it might take just a little more effort to penetrate now. 200 Mb of updates is alot and some of the new features are good. I did like some of the new wireless features and the fact that they locked down some internet and e-mail stuff finally by default.

The Wrong) Most of the new features only cover up faulty code - it did not fix it. It's a MS product and since it's integrated into the same OS with all the holes in it the time it will take hackers to check out the code and crack into those new features will be minimal. The first hole was discovered - crap - before it was even fully released. It is a MS product therefore little doubt exists that it will continue to be a major target and I'm sure security patches will continue to come out of the MS camp.

I prefer my non MS protection - McAfee firewall and antivirus, Firefox browser, Winamp and all e-mail through web based interface. Haven't had a piece of spyware, no viruses and not one worm or hack in three years - ever since I stopped relying solely on MS products to protect me.

There are going to be MILLION of people who see this and think they are protected. We don't need any additional protection - Microsoft thought of everything. What those millions don't realize is it is a MS product and therefore WILL BE HACKED.

To me there is no logical reason to mess with SP2 - my system is hardened and until those programs don't protect anymore SP 2 is a waste of my time and will only change things in a way that MS thinks will protect me - and knowing MS's history I don't trust their thinking at all.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 22:15   #34
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
The IT file is 200MB because it needs to accomodate for all situations Pro/Home, plus all the SP1/1a updates for clean XP installs.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 22:38   #35
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Indeed, there is a smaller (90 Mb??) one I saw around as well, guessing just the current fixes?

My main reason for not trusting them is knowing Windows XP is around 500 Mb. SP2 is about 250 Mb .. that means over half the program was bad. With that kind of track record and knowing the new features are going to be the direct target of every hacker out there I can't see putting all my marbles in the MS jar like they want me to. I'd rather had seen them harden the actual OS and leave the security stuff to the third party companies instead.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2004, 23:27   #36
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
When you say that all 250MB are bad, you have to remember that if there is a small bug (i.e. one line is bad) in any file, the whole file has to be replaced.

Plus, bugs in any program are inevitable. Windows XP has an estimated 40 million lines of code. If there is on average 1 bug per 25,000 lines of code (a conservative estimate), that means that there are 1,600 bugs. This would mean that only .0625% of the code is bad. Even with an estimate of 1 bug per 1,000 or even 100 lines of code, only .1% or 1% (respectively) of the code is bad.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2004, 04:59   #37
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
The Wrong) Most of the new features only cover up faulty code - it did not fix it. It's a MS product and since it's integrated into the same OS with all the holes in it the time it will take hackers to check out the code and crack into those new features will be minimal. The first hole was discovered - crap - before it was even fully released. It is a MS product therefore little doubt exists that it will continue to be a major target and I'm sure security patches will continue to come out of the MS camp.
Not true.

This is an assertion made by many, and it is not true.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2004, 17:00   #38
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
MegaRock: Linux has at LEAST as many security holes has Windows. However, you have to realize that because Linux isn't used by most people/companies, hackers don't spend as much time trying to break into Linux systems.

If Linux was used as widely as Windows, the same thing would (probably) happen.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2004, 19:24   #39
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
The Wrong) Most of the new features only cover up faulty code - it did not fix it. It's a MS product and since it's integrated into the same OS with all the holes in it the time it will take hackers to check out the code and crack into those new features will be minimal. The first hole was discovered - crap - before it was even fully released. It is a MS product therefore little doubt exists that it will continue to be a major target and I'm sure security patches will continue to come out of the MS camp.
The code is not faulty. The system's bugs were never the real problem - it was no buggier than linux. The bottom line was that when there was a problem, it was a lot easier to exploit it, because of the architecture of the system...

Most people didn't install a firewall (or even use windows' builtin one which was off by default except for dialup connections), because the users simply didn't know it was a good idea (or, with many, even what it was). This lead to a service which should be covered by a firewall giving the huge problems it did.

The bottom line is, that when a system is engineered to be user-friendly, it becomes necessary to walk the users through a lot of the process. Windows PCs are safe if the user knows what he or she's doing - the problem is that a lot of users don't.

The new features aid a naive user in having a more secure system - that's basically all. The holes are extremely minor (the only ones I've seen are nearly silly, as is asserted by their finders).

edit: sorry, i just realised I already answered - was drunk

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2004, 19:54   #40
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
No buggier than Linux? You've got to be kidding me. The past three months I had at least one security update every single day. My Linux desktop machine on the other hand hasn't had to be updated in over a year with the exception of upgrading a few things like spam and antivirus protection. Crap, don't even have a firewall on it which although probably not the smartest thing doesnt seem to be a problem. Try running a Windows box with no firewall and antivirus and see how long it takes to get infected.

Indeed it may be user friendly but since they took the user and server versiona and joined them all under the same basic kernel it's screwed. I much more preferred having the 'user' version (for the dummies) and the 'server' version for those knowledgable in computers or those requiring something a bit more secure. When you can take a program and make XP think it's 2003 Server it's the same code (switchXP).

Indeed Linux isn't perfect by any means but you don't see updates for the basic programs on a daily basis to patch major vunerabilities.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump