Re: Does Microsoft realize they have a major flaw in Windows XP?

"Bob" <robertredferd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.


Bob,

Irrespective of your post not actually being related to this topic I will
address it.
We have released an updated Windows XP to both the retail and OEM channels -
one that includes Service Pack 2.
This is the one of the most important security this is one of the most
important security releases we have ever done.
Once you are online and running SP2 you can then update your PC easily with
Windows Update to ensure you are always patched with the latest security
fixes etc.
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"Bob" <robertredferd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u1QPAL0sFHA.524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> IMHO Microsoft should have made a new and corrected version
> of XP, incorporating the many known security loopholes, and all
> of the other thousands of patches in the service packs and cumulative
> updates. The new version should be called XP Second Edition.
> It will of course be free to everyone owning a legitimate copy of
> XP. That's what I'd do if I had 50 billion smackeroos.
>
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23WgRPIrsFHA.2076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> The article was re-reviewed July 15 2005 (just a few weeks ago).
>> The problem (symptom, cause) is clearly stated and a workaround provided.
>>
>> The problem itself is still under investigation and a fix may be
>> forthcoming in the future.
>>
>> Beyond this I fail to see the point of your message. Is the workaround
>> not working for you or are you experiencing some other problem you think
>> is related to this one ?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights
>>
>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> newsgroups
>>
>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:%23V5MvOpsFHA.3852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Now I know you may think they do realize the issue because they have a
>>> Knowledge Base article on the issue. But come'on how long has Windows
>>> XP
>>> existed in the Market? And if you know anything about Knowledge Base
>>> articles and statements such as this in them "Microsoft is researching
>>> this
>>> problem and will post more information in this article when the
>>> information
>>> becomes available," you'll know that the issue will never be addressed -
>>> forever. Give me one example where a statement such as this in a
>>> Knowledge
>>> Base article was EVER addressed afterwards. Just one. Here is the KB:
>>>
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884564
>>>
>>> Now I can tell you the RPC error as they have written here is only half
>>> the
>>> story. The other half they camouflage but if you read the article
>>> closely
>>> you will see they say, "receive either of the following error
>>> messages..."
>>> The important word here is "either." That means one or the other -
>>> maybe
>>> both since that is not addressed. The old Aristotlean logic here.
>>>
>>> Anyway reading further it says for cause, "because of a mismatch in the
>>> computer name and the name that the RPC service expects." Now this
>>> addresses one half of the Venn not the other. In fact the "either" has
>>> been
>>> completely ignored. The cause addresses the RPC half of the either NOT
>>> the
>>> other namely, "You do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on
>>> computer name."
>>>
>>> So let's assume the Cause preamble is not the whole story (they do say
>>> "may") and jump into the various "methods" listed.
>>>
>>> Notice the word "one" in the preamble and again "one" in the third
>>> "method."
>>> It turns out the issue can arise when we "disconnect the network cable
>>> during the Windows XP Out of Box Experience." Well that's all fine and
>>> dandy. What if there is no Network connection during the OOBE? Hmmm...
>>> Obviously this article implies that if we install Windows XP without a
>>> Network Connection then we run the risk of at some time in the future,
>>> "You
>>> do not have access rights to Logical Disk Manager on computer name."
>>> And
>>> that is what has happened to me. I removed the system from the Network
>>> Connection to do some work on it and guess what? I can no longer access
>>> Disk Manager. Whether it is hooked up to the Domain or not from Windows
>>> XP.
>>> Believe it or not I CAN access the Disk Manager from the Domain
>>> Controller
>>> but no longer from Windows XP itself.
>>>
>>> Hence I have to re-install because of this issue. And to make sure I
>>> don't
>>> experience it again I have to make sure I do it while on the Network.
>>> Or
>>> maybe not. The point is this issue has existed for three years now.
>>> And
>>> what we have here is all that has been said about the matter and likely
>>> ever
>>> will.
>>>
>>> --
>>> George Hester
>>> _________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.