Re: XP SP2

R

Custom made programs were a seen as a problem around the time of the Y2K era
too.. we all knew that Y2K may be an issue long before the date change, and
in many cases, companies drew up huge plans and paid huge amounts of money
in order to defend against it..

Security has long been an issue in the IT world, and those that call for it
have to accept any measures that are created to help.. Microsoft did their
bit in developing SP2 which was in beta form for quite a while, released in
final form for a while, and after calls from industry, gave them a way to
stop SP2 automatically loading.. if those same companies have sat on their
butts and done little or nothing to incorporating SP2 since that time, then
they have only themselves to blame.. likewise home users.. I understand that
money constraints may affect a home user more than the corporate world in
that the home user can't recover costs through tax breaks.. the choice
giving up using an old application or giving up security is a choice that
they and they alone will have to make..

... And congratulations, R.. welcome to the 'club'.. no profanity or spitting
allowed.. hard hat to be always worn when on site..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OStwhFBQFHA.3988@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Here's the dilemma. Microsoft gets bashed for lack of Security in it's
> OS product line. They opt for more Security in deference to "Ease
> of Use" in SP2. Now, the complaint is Microsoft forcing SP2 onto
> unwilling customers.
> As to Enterprise adoption rates - They want stability and even the
> monthly updates gives them support issues. Couple that with the fact
> that most IT departments are outsourced - you've got even more of
> a "Lag/Procrastination" factor in play. One other "Big" issue with SP2
> in Enterprise environments are "In-House" developed apps that have
> issues with Service Pack 2.
> It's unfortunate that companies ask for more Security and then when
> it's available balk at implementing it.
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23OZ608AQFHA.688@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Treeman
>>
>> I don't see the point in having to be always fully alert when there are
>> devices, programs, and updates available that will allow me to relax
>> sometimes.. I want to give my time to being productive, and that does not
>> include having to be on full alert against every little thing lurking in
>> the shadows.. having a rearguard in enemy territory is not a sign of
>> weakness.. it helps the operative get the main job done..
>>
>> Nobody is being forced to accept SP2.. it can still be stopped.. nobody
>> is being forced to use a firewall or anti-virus protection other than
>> some companies that insist ALL workstations run av programs, scanning
>> software reporting back to system admin the names of operators who fail
>> to ensure that it is running AND updated.. if you and others feel that a
>> rearguard in some way diminishes your perceived competence, then so be it
>> and good luck to you..
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Treeman" <Treeman.1newdm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Treeman.1newdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> SNIPO[/QUOTE Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sitara,
>>>> Follow along and then decide for yourself.
>>>> "A 180 day grace period was given so that software could be
>>>> updated to work with SP2, and
>>>> _most_companies_have_patched_their_software_for_SP2.\"_
>>>> LESS THAN A QUARTER OF BUSINESSES IN NORTH AMERICA HAVE INSTALLED
>>>> WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2 (SP2) ACCORDING TO A NEW STUDY, APRIL 05,
>>>> 2005 BY ASSETMETRIX.
>>>> 'SC Magazine' (http://tinyurl.com/6av5r)
>>>>
>>>> "Not only does SP2 significantly enhance the security of Windows XP,
>>>> it also updates over 5 million lines of code to _enhance_ the
>>>> performance
>>>> of Windows XP."
>>>> GOOGLE SEARCH; XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>> RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 965,000 FOR XP SP2 PROBLEMS
>>>>
>>>> "-- Better hardware support: IEEE 1394 works without eating RAM"
>>>> SORRY, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT EITHER. [/B]
>>>> ARCHITECTURE - FIREWIRE VS. USB 2.0
>>>> FIREWIRE, BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP FOR SPEED, USES A
>>>> \"PEER-TO-PEER\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE PERIPHERALS ARE INTELLIGENT
>>>> AND CAN NEGOTIATE BUS CONFLICTS TO DETERMINE WHICH DEVICE CAN BEST
>>>> CONTROL A DATA TRANSFER.
>>>>
>>>> USB 2.0 USES A \"MASTER-SLAVE\" ARCHITECTURE IN WHICH THE COMPUTER
>>>> HANDLES ALL ARBITRATION FUNCTIONS AND DICTATES DATA FLOW TO, FROM, AND
>>>> BETWEEN THE ATTACHED PERIPHERALS (ADDING ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OVERHEAD AND
>>>> RESULTING IN SLOWER, LESS-EFFICIENT DATA FLOW CONTROL)
>>>>
>>>> [B]\"WHY DOES MS SEEM TO ALMOST SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS - AFTER ALL
>>>> WE ARE ALL GROWN UP AND CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER WE NEED THAT
>>>> 'EXTRA PROTECTION' OR NOT.
>>>> The way I see it, this update was meant for people that don't
>>>> understand or care about security. That's why it's being shoved down
>>>> your throat.
>>>> My2cents,
>>>> Treeman
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Treeman
>>
>>
>
>


.