If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are
generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP... My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the router)? Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:25:11 GMT, "ElJerid"
wrote: I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP... My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the router)? Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load? SP2 is a pack designed to counter flaws present mostly in IE5 and OE. Remember, your OS is vulnerable only based on applications that have access to the internet, or receive incoming connections from it. This excludes more obvious and universial flaws like choosing to install malware yourself. Summary - If you insist on using MS' insecure apps, yes it is a reasonable value for security. If you are really serious about security you will have already abandoned IE and OE, and SP2 won't make a significant difference. If you want to use either, do install Sp2 to counter their flaws. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
kony wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:25:11 GMT, "ElJerid" wrote: I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP... My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the router)? Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load? SP2 is a pack designed to counter flaws present mostly in IE5 and OE. what is IE5 and OE ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
darklight
IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5) OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more). Eljerid In my opinion you would be silly NOT to use Service Pack 2 with XP a) because it's available free. Burn it to a cd for future use if you download it or even better learn how to slipstream it into an XP disk. b) you need Service Pack 1 to get usb2 capability so you might as well use sp2 because it includes everything in sp1. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
wasbit wrote:
darklight IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5) OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more). Eljerid In my opinion you would be silly NOT to use Service Pack 2 with XP a) because it's available free. Burn it to a cd for future use if you download it or even better learn how to slipstream it into an XP disk. b) you need Service Pack 1 to get usb2 capability so you might as well use sp2 because it includes everything in sp1. erm... Overlooking that XP has always had some build of IE-6 not 5 The XP Service Packs are more than just bug fixes for IE and OE - they apply bug fixes right across the entire OS. It's bad enough that we are still waiting for an official SP-3, why insist on using an OS that isn't even patched to SP-2 ? One point that may be worth making is that if your XP is a build *before* SP-1a, ( including SP-1 ) it will have the now unsupported Microsoft Java Virtual Machine. Applying SP-2 will neither uninstall nor patch the JVM - it should be uninstalled manually. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:33:28 GMT, fake-name
wrote: wasbit wrote: darklight IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5) OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more). Eljerid In my opinion you would be silly NOT to use Service Pack 2 with XP a) because it's available free. Burn it to a cd for future use if you download it or even better learn how to slipstream it into an XP disk. LOL, just becaues it's free doesn't necessarily mean it is a benefit to one's use of the system instead of an annoyance or increased overhead to use without a benefit (in some cases). b) you need Service Pack 1 to get usb2 capability so you might as well use sp2 because it includes everything in sp1. NO, needing a functionality from SP1 in no way suggests you might as well install the next service pack instead. Install patches when you feel there is a need to do so, randomly accepting whatever MS distributes without a need will in best case cause no problem but in worst case will. It's your system, install anything when there is merit which there might be, but not necessarily. Many people don't have a need for SP2, but on the other hand many who installed it for protection from (mostly vulnerabilities in OE or IE) still don't have the comprehensive protection they hoped for so would still have to abandon IE and OE to gain that, thus removing the need for SP2. As stated previously, it is about what vulnerabilities a particular system has in it's use. SP2 isn't an antivirus application, it doesn't close any open ports you can't close yourself, nor replacing those apps you use to connect to other systems/servers which store and serve up viri/malware/etc which those connecting apps or the user might install. In other words, many people will be a bit safer with SP2 installed, but cannot then entirely abandon the safe computing practices that would have made SP2 mostly unnecessary. erm... Overlooking that XP has always had some build of IE-6 not 5 Yes, I mistyped 5 when I meant 6. The XP Service Packs are more than just bug fixes for IE and OE - they apply bug fixes right across the entire OS. Yes, but those that are critical are also available as individual patches. It's bad enough that we are still waiting for an official SP-3, why insist on using an OS that isn't even patched to SP-2 ? Why "insist" at all? SP2 isn't just a bunch of patches. It has further functionality changes and it is the system owner's choice whether these are a good or bad idea. Don't ever feel compelled to run what someone wants you to, it is your system and your choice. One point that may be worth making is that if your XP is a build *before* SP-1a, ( including SP-1 ) it will have the now unsupported Microsoft Java Virtual Machine. These days if you need good java support, you'll have to update it from Sun either way. Applying SP-2 will neither uninstall nor patch the JVM - it should be uninstalled manually. AFAIK, no uninstalling is needed, just get the latest Java from Sun and install it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
kony wrote:
One point that may be worth making is that if your XP is a build *before* SP-1a, ( including SP-1 ) it will have the now unsupported Microsoft Java Virtual Machine. These days if you need good java support, you'll have to update it from Sun either way. Well, it's arguable that getting "good" Java support has required a Sun JVM for a long time... The point is that the Microsoft JVM is a known point of vulnerability, with a number of exploits available, and hasn't been patched for years. Applying SP-2 to a system that has the MS JVM installed will neither uninstall the JVM nor patch it to final release ( build 3810 ) Does this matter if the Sun JVM is the default ? Maybe not, but I prefer to uninstall it anyway, as it's easy to do an example write-up on removal is at: http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/java.php |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
wasbit wrote:
darklight IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5) OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more). question is there an alternative to IE OE where you could remove IE and OE |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
darklight wrote:
wasbit wrote: darklight IE5 = Internet Explorer (version 5) OE = Outlook Express (emails & newsgroups ....that probably confuses you even more). question is there an alternative to IE OE where you could remove IE and OE You cannot completely remove either IE or OE. Both are embedded in the OS. But that's not the whole story. OE can be (partially) removed, but MS doesn't make it easy: "Add/Remove Windows components" is a nasty little applet, since it does not tell you which components are actually installed. If you un/click the wrong boxes, you'll be surprised at what dis/appears. IE is necessary for security updates. Windows Update will not run on other browsers (believe me, I've tried.) Not all updates are fixes to flaws in IE or OE (eg, .NET has had several updates.) Some updates just add functionality (eg, improved wireless networking, IE7.) In my experience, updating everything has improved stability, too, so unlike others in this thread, I recommend all updates. (I didn't update the bar-code reader bits, since I don't use a bar code reader.) So keep IE, just don't make it your default browser. You can use it to update manually, or you can use Automatic Update, which fetches updates in the background. Both permit selection of which updates to install. Alternative to IE: Firefox. It's free from mozilla.org, and its extensions work well. (BTW, IE7, which is now a free update to XP, now includes many of the features of Firefox.) There are others, I've tried Opera (now free), it does a few things differently, but is essentially the same as Firefox. BTW, Firefox is the open source derivative of Netscape. Alternative to OE: any other e-mail client will do the job. Check their features, and pick one that does what you want, and (more importantly IMO) does _not_ do what you don't want. I use PMMail (about $30), which does not do images or HTML, which is precisely the reason that I use it. Thunderbird (free from mozilla.org) does more things, but I don't like the way it handles multiple accounts (e-mail addresses). I've not tried others. For newsgroups, I use Thunderbird, despite its weaknesses: can't handle multi-part posts, and chokes on some but not all yEnc coded posts. Its interface is better designed (== suits me better ;-)) than the alternatives (and I've tried a bunch of them.) HTH |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SP2, yes or no?
"ElJerid" wrote in message
... I know this is a hardware group, but the answers or advices here are generally excellent, and most users are on Win XP... My question is: does it still make sense to install SP2 on a PC where Avast antivirus and Zonealarm are already installed (plus a hardware FW in the router)? Is there really an added value that justifies the extra load? M$ does not support/help with problems unless SP2 has been installed. This has been the situation since Nov 2006. If you use an OS such as Winodws XP you should use all the latest up to date upgrades/patches as a general rule. Third party software suppliers usually must modify their programs to be compatible with the latest configurations. XP will not be supported indefinately. It came out in 2001 and most software has an eol, end of life. Around 7 years seems to be a common rule of thumb. If companies both hardware and software supported their products indefinitely, most would not have a cash flow so it is vital to their business model to obsolete prior stuff. Linux is an exception but even there, they drop support for hardware that gets too old and soft- ware that drops in popularity. If you/anyone is worried about invasions/viruses/unauthorized mods to your system, it is better to have the latest updates. Invasions are usually do to going to the wrong place or opening the wrong email. later, charles.... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|