Re: Is running a patch that changes something in Windows XP permis

From: Windows-XP user (user_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 02/03/05


Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:27:06 -0800

P.S., again for a Microsoft MVP: I have been trying to understand what the
following really means.
Again from under the heading “Patcher version 2.12 released!” on the
homepage of http://www.lvllord.de/:

“In addition a small bug with the version-recognition has been fixed. For
Windows XP versions before SP2 the system was recognised as SP2 RC1.
Because no file has been changed (in both cases), this is not critical...”

Regarding Patcher version 2.12 changing Windows XP Service Pack 2 I think we
don't have to know whether the ”small bug” referred to above was in a) a
version of Patcher prior to version 2.12 or b) in Windows XP versions prior
to Windows XP Service Pack 2 or c) even if there are version-information bugs
in both what I here call “a” and “b.” From the statement containing the
“small bug” above, the version-recognition problem appears not to be in
either Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Patcher version 2.12. So I suppose that
the phrase ”Because no file has been changed (in both cases)” probably means
that no Windows-XP file was changed by Patcher versions 2.12 or earlier with
regard to version information in either Windows XP Service Pack 2 or versions
of Windows XP prior to it. If all of my thinking is correct here, then 1) no
version information is changed by Patcher version 2.12 in Windows XP Service
Pack 2 and 2) the only mentioned change caused by Patcher version 2.12 in
Windows XP Service Pack 2 is the change in the upper limit on the number of
concurrent, TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol),
half-open connections. But if I am wrong, someone is welcome to correct me
here. Sorry, in my above postings I should have added the word “upper” in
front of “limit” to clearly specify an upper limit as opposed to a lower
limit on the number of concurrent, half-open, TCP/IP connections in Windows
XP Service Pack 2.

"Windows XP user" wrote:

> For a Microsoft MVP: Thanks for your posting, Mr. Nichol. Please understand
> that since I didn't write the latest patch software at
> http://www.lvllord.de/, I don't really know with certainty all of the details
> of how it does what it does. But within http://www.lvllord.de/ I extracted
> some things to quote here that tell us that the patch probably does not
> change the value of TcpNumConnections in the registry and that there isn't
> any registry key that will allow a user to fix this problem (Sorry, in my
> previous posting in this thread even I thought that editing the registry
> could have been an alternative to running this patch; but according to
> http://www.lvllord.de/, at least editing a registry key is not an
> alternative.); the quote below I took from what appeared after clicking on
> the hyperlink “FAQ” in the homepage heading “Patcher version 2.12 released!”
> at http://www.lvllord.de/ (I added the missing words “the” before “limit via”
> and between “via” and “registry” and “do” and corrected spelling or
> typographical errors to “attempt” and “attempts” in the quote below.):
>
> “I read something, that it's possible to change the limit via the registry
> (TcpNumConnections). Is that true?
> Unfortunately not. Because the concurrent connection attempt limit has
> nothing to do with concurrent connections, this registry-key is useless.
> Unfortunately there is no registry-key, which would allow the user to
> change the concurrent connection attempts.”
>
> Here is a clue to more specifically what the patch might be doing (unless L.
> v. L. or L.V.L. Lord, the author of http://www.lvllord.de/, found some other
> way to deal with this problem, which I just guess is not too likely) that
> came from the Web site http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=1497
> referred to earlier by Carey Frisch in this thread (In the quote below I
> added the hyphen in “registry-editable” and the word “it” after “possible to
> edit.”):
>
> “In addition, even though the setting was registry-editable in XP SP1, it
> is now only possible to edit it by changing it directly in the system file
> tcpip.sys. To make matters worse, that file is in use, so you also need to
> be in Safe mode in order to edit it.”
>
> A whole other approach, which might take more time than just studying what I
> wrote here and the information at http://www.lvllord.de/ or even someone at
> Microsoft Corporation running Mr. Lord's patch, might be for a
> Microsoft-Corporation employee to write to Mr. Lord using his e-mail address
> provided when you click his hyperlinked name “LvlLord” which appears on on
> the left-hand side of http://www.lvllord.de/ under “Copyright © 2004” to ask
> him very specifically how his patch does what it does (At first I had his
> actual e-mail address here, which could be convenient for readers of this
> posting; but on second thought I decided not to explicitly quote his e-mail
> address here in hopes that the way I am doing things might cut down on the
> amount of spam e-mail Mr. Lord might otherwise receive in his e-mail
> account.).
>
> In the quotation below I corrected an English or typographical error,
> changing “know” to “known” and added both the hyphen in ”half-open” and the
> period after “half-open connections.” Have a look at this informative
> posting from within http://www.msfn.org/print.php?id=9017 :
>
> "#5 Posted by zaphodiv at 12 Aug 2004 - 16:12
> Aaron, Johnsawyer the Inquirer and a lot of other people have misunderstood
> this.
>
> SP2 adds a limit on the number of connections which are in the process of
> being opened.
>
> It is _not_ a limit on the number of simultaneous open connections.
>
> The TcpNumConnections registry entry does not affect the limit on half-open
> connections.
>
> The patch from http://www.lvllord.de/ is currently the only known way to
> remove this limit."
>
> As to the other change to be made by running version 2.12 of this patch,
> here are some details I found about it that might provide a clue to Microsoft
> Corporation as to what the patch might be doing regarding the version
> recognition; I took this quote from under the heading “Patcher version 2.12
> released!” on the homepage of http://www.lvllord.de/:
>
> “In addition a small bug with the version-recognition has been fixed. For
> Windows XP versions before SP2 the system was recognised as SP2 RC1.
> Because no file has been changed (in both cases), this is not critical...”
>
> Here I wish to point out that Mr. Lord's patch is kindly provided free of
> charge. From what I have read, Microsoft's motivation in reducing the limit
> on the number of concurrent, half-open, TCP/IP connections to ten in Windows
> XP Service Pack 2 was to protect against certain types of computer attacks
> involving worms, etc., a motivation for which the world could thank Microsoft
> Corporation. Once again the purpose in increasing the limit on the number of
> concurrent, half-open, TCP/IP connections is, following the advice of one or
> more other people who posted this sort of advice on the Internet, to raise
> the performance level of at least one piece of third-party software.
> Assuming that the above posting by zaphodiv, which asserts that the use of
> Mr. Lord's patch is currently the only way to remove the limit of ten on the
> number of concurrent, half-open, TCP/IP connections is correct, the options
> that I see for changing this limit in Windows XP are extremely few: 1) Use
> Mr. Lord's patch. 2) Drop back from Windows XP Service Pack 2 to Windows XP
> Service Pack 1 or earlier. 3) Have Microsoft Corporation develop an update
> to Windows XP Service Pack 2 which gives Windows-XP users the option of
> raising the limit on the number of concurrent, half-open TCP/IP connections
> for certain programs, if they wish.
>
> If Microsoft Corporation grants permission for option 1, then options 1 and
> 2 would be the short-run options for Windows-XP users who want to raise the
> performance levels of certain pieces of third-party software. Options 1 and
> 3 above are decisions to be made by Microsoft Corporation. The purposes of
> this posting are A) to ask if Microsoft Corporation will permit the use of
> Mr. Lord's patch, B) to aid Microsoft Corporation in making that decision to
> provide as much information as this poster can immediately provide on the
> issue in hopes that Microsoft Corporation can better make an informed
> decision on whether the use of Mr. Lord's patch is consistent or not with
> Microsoft's End-User License Agreement (EULA) for Windows XP, and C) to show
> both i) the other current option 2 to Windows-XP, Service-Pack-2 users who
> want to raise the limit on the number of concurrent, half-open, TCP/IP
> connections above ten and ii) the possibly longer-term, potential option 3 to
> Microsoft Corporation for dealing with this problem. The permission to use
> Mr. Lord's patch is not for me to grant, but rather Microsoft's permission to
> grant or deny. But only for the best performance of the third-party software
> in the Windows- XP environment, to both take advantage of the other fixes
> and/or improvements in Windows XP Service Pack 2 and to increase the
> performance level for certain third-party software, as suggested by one or
> more other people, the use of Mr. Lord's patch is currently the best,
> short-run option. An employee of Microsoft Corporation, please post a reply
> granting or denying permission for the use of Mr. Lord's patch in answer to
> this posting. The following could potentially be more difficult. But if you
> could also place your answer within a broader context of the types of things
> permitted in the Windows-XP EULA, for example as Mr. Nichol stated that
> editing the registry is permissible, that principle might help other people
> with similar questions in the future. Thanks in advance for doing so.
>
> "Alex Nichol" wrote:
>
> > Windows XP user <Windows XP user@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The aim of using such a patch is to improve the
> > >performance of certain third-party software, as suggested by one or more
> > >other people. My question is is this sort of changing in Windows XP allowed
> > >by Microsoft Corporation? That is is it considered consistent with the
> > >End-User License Agreement for Windows XP software? If this is allowed, I
> > >would much prefer using such a patch compared to editing the sensitive area
> > >of the computer registry, which I think may have been suggested somewhere on
> > >the Internet.
> >
> > If it is just making registry changes and does not involved
> > modifications to code, it is within the EULA. Mind you I would be very
> > cautious of such things. Make sure you have a fresh restore point and
> > if the software does not live up to expectation go back to the restore
> > point
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> > Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
> >