RE: "SP2?"
From: Mack (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Alex Nichol: "Re: defragmenter"
- Previous message: Alex Nichol: "Re: uninstalling update"
- In reply to: MAP: "RE: "SP2?""
- Next in thread: Rock: "Re: "SP2?""
- Reply: Rock: "Re: "SP2?""
- Reply: Simon R: "RE: "SP2?""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 07:02:47 -0700
Well, went for it since I received the disk by snail
mail. Installed on two computers and both installs went
flawlessly. Thanks to all for all the input which helped
me in my decision. Made no errors nor change any function
on either machine. Thanks again,
Mack
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>"Mack" wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My computer is completely up to date from Microsoft
>> including SP1. I use Norton Firewall and Norton Virsus
>> Protection. Is it a must to install SP2? Thanks in
>> advance. Oh, from what I read, SP2 is just
enhancements
>> for security firewall and like I mentioned, I use
Norton.
>>
>> Mack
>>
>
>This is something you need to decide for yourself but
this newsgroup is full
>of people who will tell you that "yes you need it".
>Some things to concider and I'm sure there are more
>mainly is your system working the way you want it too
now?
>Have you taken security precautions, firewall/anti-virus
software? have you
>changed default settings such as remote help and file
sharing to disable?
>Have you shutoff DCOM?
>
>1) Go Slow With XP's SP2
>Many readers are wondering what to do about XP's SP2,
which is starting to
>trickle out in a limited release. But over the next few
weeks, just about all
>XP users will be offered the download in a carefully
sequenced rollout
>designed to prevent the overload of Microsoft's servers.
>
>When you're offered SP2, my advice is: Do nothing; wait
a bit.
>
>SP2 is huge--- so big it's almost a whole new version of
XP. Like any new
>version of any OS, it *will* contain bugs, and it *will*
cause trouble on
>some setups. The more complex and/or nonstandard your
setup is, the greater
>the likelihood of a problem.
>
>Plus, there's no "must have right now" element to SP2:
Much of SP2 is
>designed to force uninformed (or just plain lazy!) PC
users to use basic
>security--- to stay current with updates, to use a
firewall, etc. (These are
>the users running the unpatched/unprotected systems that
allow most
>worms/viruses to spread.)
>
>But odds are, if you're reading this newsletter, you
already know about and
>are using pretty good security practices, such as good
firewall, antivirus
>and anti-spyware tools, and you're keeping up to date
with Critical Updates.
>If that's the case, you won't gain a lot by rushing into
SP2.
>
>Instead, wait a bit--- even as much as a month or two---
to let the worst
>problems with SP2 come to light and be fixed on other
user's PCs.
>
>Again, as long as you're already using the kinds of
security tools and
>techniques we discuss in this newsletter every week
(example:
>http://www.informationweek.com/840/langa.htm ), there's
no need to rush into
>SP2.
>
>I'm not the only one suggesting this "go slow" approach.
See, for example
>these other authors:
>http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/60.htm
>http://channelzone.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,1759,1633858,
00.asp
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: Alex Nichol: "Re: defragmenter"
- Previous message: Alex Nichol: "Re: uninstalling update"
- In reply to: MAP: "RE: "SP2?""
- Next in thread: Rock: "Re: "SP2?""
- Reply: Rock: "Re: "SP2?""
- Reply: Simon R: "RE: "SP2?""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
