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

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

That doesn't seem entirely true. I can't seem to get Windows Update to
actually load and run the "checker" applet and I'll be damned if I can
figure out what restriction is pertinent that I seem to have "set" somewhere
other than under Tools/Security tab.

So "easily" certainly doesn't apply here :)

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" <mikebran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OxpNhu3sFHA.1028@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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
>>>> _________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Quantcast