Re: SP2, My Perspective So Far...

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

List of fixes included in Service Pack 2 for Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=winxp

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Susan" wrote:

| Being the first to install and use SP2 may not be a good idea until way
| after the dust settles...
|
| My four clean installs of XP Home and Professional over the last couple
| years is that after using the Internet wizard the firewall is enabled by
| default...I have never seen it disabled. In fact, I either called M$ or
| posted very early on to learn where and how to disable it.
|
| First of all I use a router that has a built-in firewall that cannot be
| disabled--really. Secondly, I still use the latest version of Zone Alarm
| Pro for Privacy. Third, I use the latest Ad-aware for spy stuff. In some
| cases if I had XP's firewall enabled (which I never do) I would be triple
| fire-walling one machine and double fire-walling the other.
|
| My conclusion so far... For my situation based on what has been discussed
| about SP2 there is no reason for me to install it now.
|
| What I want to look through is a comprehensive list of XP Home and
| Professional bugs that SP2 fixes--that would be far more interesting to see
| and more reason to install now if something I hate has been fixed?
|
| Susan

[Testy]

I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service pack.

Testy

"Susan" > wrote in message
...
> Being the first to install and use SP2 may not be a good idea until way
> after the dust settles...
>
> My four clean installs of XP Home and Professional over the last couple
> years is that after using the Internet wizard the firewall is enabled by
> default...I have never seen it disabled. In fact, I either called M$ or
> posted very early on to learn where and how to disable it.
>
> First of all I use a router that has a built-in firewall that cannot be
> disabled--really. Secondly, I still use the latest version of Zone Alarm
> Pro for Privacy. Third, I use the latest Ad-aware for spy stuff. In some
> cases if I had XP's firewall enabled (which I never do) I would be triple
> fire-walling one machine and double fire-walling the other.
>
> My conclusion so far... For my situation based on what has been discussed
> about SP2 there is no reason for me to install it now.
>
> What I want to look through is a comprehensive list of XP Home and
> Professional bugs that SP2 fixes--that would be far more interesting to
see
> and more reason to install now if something I hate has been fixed?
>
> Susan


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

I installed SP2 yesterday over an existing Windows XP SP1
installation. After performing a Disk Cleanup and Defrag,
I must say this computer is performing better than ever.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Susan" wrote:
|
| Thanks Carey. What a huge endeavor. I didn't see anything that caught my
| eye though--I have a very bare-bones no frills machine. I do think it
| might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install and to do it from
| Windows Update. It will happen but I won't be the first on the block.
|
| Susan

[Jeffrey Struyk - MVP]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:18:40 GMT, Susan > wrote:

>I do think it
>might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install and to do it from
>Windows Update.

A word of caution: going online without at least SP1 is a dangerous
thing. I've seen a system with brand a new clean install pick up
viruses in the short time it takes to go online just to get updated
virus definitions. In this case, applying SP1 before going online
would have prevented the infection.

SP2 contains the latest protections. If you have it on a CD, I'd
suggest using it on any clean install before going online.

Just my $0.02,
Jeff


--
Jeffrey Struyk
Microsoft MVP
http://support.microsoft.com
Please direct all replies to the newsgroup.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But you may not be the typical user.
The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer safe
computing.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Testy" > wrote in message
...
>I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service pack.
>
> Testy

[Testy]

Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer without MS's
intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several month for
several of my clients who provide customized software to many major firms
across North America.
It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or switch to Linux
which will be fully supported.
I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to survive in this
world.

Testy


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> But you may not be the typical user.
> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer safe
> computing.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service pack.
> >
> > Testy
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Testy]

There is nothing SP2 does that an ordinary user cannot do for himself. Of
course most people don't and as usual have screwed things up foe the rest of
us.

Testy

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> But you may not be the typical user.
> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer safe
> computing.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service pack.
> >
> > Testy
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Enkidu]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:58:00 -0500, Jeffrey Struyk - MVP <MVP> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:18:40 GMT, Susan > wrote:
>
>>I do think it
>>might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install and to do it from
>>Windows Update.
>
>A word of caution: going online without at least SP1 is a dangerous
>thing. I've seen a system with brand a new clean install pick up
>viruses in the short time it takes to go online just to get updated
>virus definitions. In this case, applying SP1 before going online
>would have prevented the infection.
>
Well, SP1 doesn't protect against blaster and later viruses. What I
generally do is install base, install any SPs, install virus checker,
install the latest virus defs, install Ad-Aware and Spybot.

THEN I connect to the network, from behind a firewall if possible, and
download the latest patches from MS. That's not ideal. If I have the
latest patches locally I put them on first, but I think it is
reasonably safe to go to WindowsUpdate at that stage.

Cheers,

Cliff

[Testy]

I didn't damn MS for anything and I am doing quite well financially thank
you.

Testy

"bizbee" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 18:21:02 -0400 in
> >, "Testy"
> > graced the world with this thought:
>
> >There is nothing SP2 does that an ordinary user cannot do for himself. Of
> >course most people don't and as usual have screwed things up foe the rest
of
> >us.
> >
>
> yes, DAMN Microsoft for doing something to help the majority. How
> typical.
> Is that what you're saying? Sure looks like it.
> Sounds pretty stupid if you want to know the truth. If that's the way
> you treat the customers who "pay you to survive," my guess is that
> you'd best be looking for a job in a different field.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."
So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no good
since the RTM was only set yesterday.
You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a new
Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an adequate
test.
Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
advice.

I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear of
embarrassing them?
But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24 hours of
testing they are not foolish enough to post their own shortcomings for
all to see.

To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to discount
it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.

No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about when the
next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as you
have assured them they need to be.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Testy" > wrote in message
...
> Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer without MS's
> intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several month
> for
> several of my clients who provide customized software to many major
> firms
> across North America.
> It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
> All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or switch to
> Linux
> which will be fully supported.
> I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to survive
> in this
> world.
>
> Testy
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But you may not be the typical user.
>> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
>> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer
>> safe
>> computing.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service
>> >pack.
>> >
>> > Testy
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>
>

[Testy]

I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several TechNet sessions
for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of over of 75
consultants.
And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the security needs of
their respective businesses.
You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills. Nothing
which you suggest appears in my post.

Testy

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."
> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no good
> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a new
> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an adequate
> test.
> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
> advice.
>
> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear of
> embarrassing them?
> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24 hours of
> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own shortcomings for
> all to see.
>
> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to discount
> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.
>
> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about when the
> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as you
> have assured them they need to be.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer without MS's
> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several month
> > for
> > several of my clients who provide customized software to many major
> > firms
> > across North America.
> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or switch to
> > Linux
> > which will be fully supported.
> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to survive
> > in this
> > world.
> >
> > Testy
> >
> >
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> But you may not be the typical user.
> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer
> >> safe
> >> computing.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service
> >> >pack.
> >> >
> >> > Testy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in this
post.
But you did state it in another recent post.

So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will have
SP2 installed."
Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
thread?

Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never will
have SP2 installed."
You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
installing.
You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever using
the final version.

You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself wrote
a short time ago?
It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Testy" > wrote in message
...
>I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several TechNet
>sessions
> for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of over of
> 75
> consultants.
> And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the security
> needs of
> their respective businesses.
> You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
> Nothing
> which you suggest appears in my post.
>
> Testy
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
>> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
>> installed."
>> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
>> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no
>> good
>> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
>> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a
>> new
>> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
>> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an adequate
>> test.
>> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
>> advice.
>>
>> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear of
>> embarrassing them?
>> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24 hours
>> of
>> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own shortcomings
>> for
>> all to see.
>>
>> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
>> discount
>> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.
>>
>> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about when
>> the
>> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as
>> you
>> have assured them they need to be.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer without
>> > MS's
>> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several
>> > month
>> > for
>> > several of my clients who provide customized software to many
>> > major
>> > firms
>> > across North America.
>> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
>> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or switch
>> > to
>> > Linux
>> > which will be fully supported.
>> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
>> > survive
>> > in this
>> > world.
>> >
>> > Testy
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
>> > message
>> > ...
>> >> But you may not be the typical user.
>> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
>> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer
>> >> safe
>> >> computing.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service
>> >> >pack.
>> >> >
>> >> > Testy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>
>

[Edward W. Thompson]

I admit I know nothing about SP2 but from what I have read and the many
posts on the subject it appears that the primary purpose of the release is
to provide protection (additional protection) against viruses, hackers and
the like. Unfortunately, MS track record of recent times is so abysmal that
no matter what they seem to do is second best. OK so they will 'improve'
the firewall, but my understanding is it will not be anywhere as good as
third party firewalls and I strongly suspect the concensus will be to
install a third party firewall. Similarly their attempts to protect the
system against viruses (obviously of the known variety) will still require
us all to instal a third party AVP and keep it up to date. I suppose I
could go on but what is the point? From what I understand, and I freely
admit my iunderstanding may be well off base, this new release really will
change very little as far as 'protection' is concerned yet this appears to
be the principal, but perhaps not the only reason, for the release.


"Susan" > wrote in message
...
> Being the first to install and use SP2 may not be a good idea until way
> after the dust settles...
>
> My four clean installs of XP Home and Professional over the last couple
> years is that after using the Internet wizard the firewall is enabled by
> default...I have never seen it disabled. In fact, I either called M$ or
> posted very early on to learn where and how to disable it.
>
> First of all I use a router that has a built-in firewall that cannot be
> disabled--really. Secondly, I still use the latest version of Zone Alarm
> Pro for Privacy. Third, I use the latest Ad-aware for spy stuff. In some
> cases if I had XP's firewall enabled (which I never do) I would be triple
> fire-walling one machine and double fire-walling the other.
>
> My conclusion so far... For my situation based on what has been discussed
> about SP2 there is no reason for me to install it now.
>
> What I want to look through is a comprehensive list of XP Home and
> Professional bugs that SP2 fixes--that would be far more interesting to
see
> and more reason to install now if something I hate has been fixed?
>
> Susan

[Robert Moir]

Susan wrote:
> "Carey Frisch [MVP]" > wrote:
>
>> List of fixes included in Service Pack 2 for Windows XP
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811113&Product=winxp
>
> Thanks Carey. What a huge endeavor. I didn't see anything that
> caught my eye though--I have a very bare-bones no frills machine. I
> do think it might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install
> and to do it from Windows Update. It will happen but I won't be the
> first on the block.

Seems sensible to me. Too many people rush to install things on the day they
are released and end up in a horrible mess because in their rush they
tripped over a problem. I wish everyone were a bit more cautious.

Rob

[Testy]

"I do not have" does not mean "I never had"
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1631669,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

Testy

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
> Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in this
> post.
> But you did state it in another recent post.
>
> So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will have
> SP2 installed."
> Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
> thread?
>
> Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never will
> have SP2 installed."
> You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
> installing.
> You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever using
> the final version.
>
> You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself wrote
> a short time ago?
> It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several TechNet
> >sessions
> > for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of over of
> > 75
> > consultants.
> > And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the security
> > needs of
> > their respective businesses.
> > You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
> > Nothing
> > which you suggest appears in my post.
> >
> > Testy
> >
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
> >> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
> >> installed."
> >> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
> >> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no
> >> good
> >> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
> >> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a
> >> new
> >> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
> >> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an adequate
> >> test.
> >> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
> >> advice.
> >>
> >> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear of
> >> embarrassing them?
> >> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24 hours
> >> of
> >> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own shortcomings
> >> for
> >> all to see.
> >>
> >> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
> >> discount
> >> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.
> >>
> >> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about when
> >> the
> >> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as
> >> you
> >> have assured them they need to be.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer without
> >> > MS's
> >> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several
> >> > month
> >> > for
> >> > several of my clients who provide customized software to many
> >> > major
> >> > firms
> >> > across North America.
> >> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
> >> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or switch
> >> > to
> >> > Linux
> >> > which will be fully supported.
> >> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
> >> > survive
> >> > in this
> >> > world.
> >> >
> >> > Testy
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > ...
> >> >> But you may not be the typical user.
> >> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
> >> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people prefer
> >> >> safe
> >> >> computing.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this service
> >> >> >pack.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Testy
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Jeffrey Struyk - MVP]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:31:58 +1200, Enkidu > wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:58:00 -0500, Jeffrey Struyk - MVP <MVP> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:18:40 GMT, Susan > wrote:
>>
>>>I do think it
>>>might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install and to do it from
>>>Windows Update.
>>
>>A word of caution: going online without at least SP1 is a dangerous
>>thing. I've seen a system with brand a new clean install pick up
>>viruses in the short time it takes to go online just to get updated
>>virus definitions. In this case, applying SP1 before going online
>>would have prevented the infection.
>>
>Well, SP1 doesn't protect against blaster and later viruses. What I
>generally do is install base, install any SPs, install virus checker,
>install the latest virus defs, install Ad-Aware and Spybot.
>
>THEN I connect to the network, from behind a firewall if possible, and
>download the latest patches from MS. That's not ideal. If I have the
>latest patches locally I put them on first, but I think it is
>reasonably safe to go to WindowsUpdate at that stage.

The bottom line is it's best to install as many protections as
possible before going online. Your scenario is about as safe of a
process as could be expected.

--
Jeffrey Struyk
Microsoft MVP
http://support.microsoft.com
Please direct all replies to the newsgroup.

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Since the final version just went RTM, it is about the same since you
could not have possibly adequately tested the RTM if you had a chance
to install it at all.
So it seems your final judgment on a product is based solely on the
Beta versions.
Based also on this statement of yours:
"I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Testy" > wrote in message
...
> "I do not have" does not mean "I never had"
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1631669,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
>
> Testy
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
>> Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in this
>> post.
>> But you did state it in another recent post.
>>
>> So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will have
>> SP2 installed."
>> Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
>> thread?
>>
>> Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never will
>> have SP2 installed."
>> You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
>> installing.
>> You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever using
>> the final version.
>>
>> You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself
>> wrote
>> a short time ago?
>> It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several TechNet
>> >sessions
>> > for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of over
>> > of
>> > 75
>> > consultants.
>> > And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the security
>> > needs of
>> > their respective businesses.
>> > You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
>> > Nothing
>> > which you suggest appears in my post.
>> >
>> > Testy
>> >
>> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
>> > message
>> > ...
>> >> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
>> >> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
>> >> installed."
>> >> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
>> >> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no
>> >> good
>> >> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
>> >> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a
>> >> new
>> >> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
>> >> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an
>> >> adequate
>> >> test.
>> >> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
>> >> advice.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear
>> >> of
>> >> embarrassing them?
>> >> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24
>> >> hours
>> >> of
>> >> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own
>> >> shortcomings
>> >> for
>> >> all to see.
>> >>
>> >> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
>> >> discount
>> >> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.
>> >>
>> >> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about
>> >> when
>> >> the
>> >> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as
>> >> you
>> >> have assured them they need to be.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer
>> >> > without
>> >> > MS's
>> >> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several
>> >> > month
>> >> > for
>> >> > several of my clients who provide customized software to many
>> >> > major
>> >> > firms
>> >> > across North America.
>> >> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
>> >> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to
>> >> > Linux
>> >> > which will be fully supported.
>> >> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
>> >> > survive
>> >> > in this
>> >> > world.
>> >> >
>> >> > Testy
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> But you may not be the typical user.
>> >> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
>> >> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people
>> >> >> prefer
>> >> >> safe
>> >> >> computing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this
>> >> >> >service
>> >> >> >pack.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Testy
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
>> >> > 8/6/2004
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>
>

[Robert Moir]

Jacky53 wrote:
> Carey,
>
> Is it absolutely necessary to have SP1 installed before SP2 can be?
> I thought MS was thinking of bundling SP1 with SP2. Perhaps this is
> no longer the case.
>
> So if I decide to slip stream SP2, I should do it on XP SP1 then? Do
> I also need all the hotfixes (especially Rollup) as well or will SP2
> have everything in it.

SP2 includes all of the hotfixes and suchlike that were in SP1, so no you
don't need SP1 installed before starting with SP2.

[Testy]

You still cannot read can you. I was part of a group of over 75 consultants
testing SP2 for several large developers. My conclusions are not mine alone,
but a consensus of all involved.
The fact that you asked me to name my clients is appalling surely a MS MVP
should understand the concept of confidentiality. What you are suggesting
would open me to prosecution for not only breech of contract but several
International Security laws.

Now take your little mind elsewhere as it cannot absorb the most basic of
facts.

Testy

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Since the final version just went RTM, it is about the same since you
> could not have possibly adequately tested the RTM if you had a chance
> to install it at all.
> So it seems your final judgment on a product is based solely on the
> Beta versions.
> Based also on this statement of yours:
> "I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "I do not have" does not mean "I never had"
> >
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1631669,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
> >
> > Testy
> >
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
> >> Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in this
> >> post.
> >> But you did state it in another recent post.
> >>
> >> So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will have
> >> SP2 installed."
> >> Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
> >> thread?
> >>
> >> Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never will
> >> have SP2 installed."
> >> You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
> >> installing.
> >> You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever using
> >> the final version.
> >>
> >> You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself
> >> wrote
> >> a short time ago?
> >> It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several TechNet
> >> >sessions
> >> > for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of over
> >> > of
> >> > 75
> >> > consultants.
> >> > And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the security
> >> > needs of
> >> > their respective businesses.
> >> > You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
> >> > Nothing
> >> > which you suggest appears in my post.
> >> >
> >> > Testy
> >> >
> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
> >> >> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
> >> >> installed."
> >> >> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
> >> >> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is no
> >> >> good
> >> >> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
> >> >> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly test a
> >> >> new
> >> >> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
> >> >> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an
> >> >> adequate
> >> >> test.
> >> >> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your unsound
> >> >> advice.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for fear
> >> >> of
> >> >> embarrassing them?
> >> >> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24
> >> >> hours
> >> >> of
> >> >> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own
> >> >> shortcomings
> >> >> for
> >> >> all to see.
> >> >>
> >> >> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
> >> >> discount
> >> >> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their part.
> >> >>
> >> >> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about
> >> >> when
> >> >> the
> >> >> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared as
> >> >> you
> >> >> have assured them they need to be.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer
> >> >> > without
> >> >> > MS's
> >> >> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for several
> >> >> > month
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > several of my clients who provide customized software to many
> >> >> > major
> >> >> > firms
> >> >> > across North America.
> >> >> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support SP2.
> >> >> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or
> >> >> > switch
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > Linux
> >> >> > which will be fully supported.
> >> >> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
> >> >> > survive
> >> >> > in this
> >> >> > world.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Testy
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
> >> >> > message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> But you may not be the typical user.
> >> >> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their computer.
> >> >> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people
> >> >> >> prefer
> >> >> >> safe
> >> >> >> computing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this
> >> >> >> >service
> >> >> >> >pack.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Testy
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
> >> >> > 8/6/2004
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

And now you resort to insults.
Insults come from those unable to defend their position and need some
other method to shore it up...you failed.
Whether your position is defensible or not, you clearly show you are
not capable of supporting it.

Good bye testy.
Have fun insulting others.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Testy" > wrote in message
...
> You still cannot read can you. I was part of a group of over 75
> consultants
> testing SP2 for several large developers. My conclusions are not
> mine alone,
> but a consensus of all involved.
> The fact that you asked me to name my clients is appalling surely a
> MS MVP
> should understand the concept of confidentiality. What you are
> suggesting
> would open me to prosecution for not only breech of contract but
> several
> International Security laws.
>
> Now take your little mind elsewhere as it cannot absorb the most
> basic of
> facts.
>
> Testy
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since the final version just went RTM, it is about the same since
>> you
>> could not have possibly adequately tested the RTM if you had a
>> chance
>> to install it at all.
>> So it seems your final judgment on a product is based solely on the
>> Beta versions.
>> Based also on this statement of yours:
>> "I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>>
>>
>> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "I do not have" does not mean "I never had"
>> >
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1631669,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
>> >
>> > Testy
>> >
>> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
>> > message
>> > ...
>> >> You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
>> >> Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in
>> >> this
>> >> post.
>> >> But you did state it in another recent post.
>> >>
>> >> So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will
>> >> have
>> >> SP2 installed."
>> >> Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
>> >> thread?
>> >>
>> >> Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never
>> >> will
>> >> have SP2 installed."
>> >> You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
>> >> installing.
>> >> You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever
>> >> using
>> >> the final version.
>> >>
>> >> You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself
>> >> wrote
>> >> a short time ago?
>> >> It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several
>> >> >TechNet
>> >> >sessions
>> >> > for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of
>> >> > over
>> >> > of
>> >> > 75
>> >> > consultants.
>> >> > And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the
>> >> > security
>> >> > needs of
>> >> > their respective businesses.
>> >> > You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension
>> >> > skills.
>> >> > Nothing
>> >> > which you suggest appears in my post.
>> >> >
>> >> > Testy
>> >> >
>> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
>> >> >> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
>> >> >> installed."
>> >> >> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
>> >> >> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> good
>> >> >> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
>> >> >> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly
>> >> >> test a
>> >> >> new
>> >> >> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
>> >> >> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an
>> >> >> adequate
>> >> >> test.
>> >> >> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your
>> >> >> unsound
>> >> >> advice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for
>> >> >> fear
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> embarrassing them?
>> >> >> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24
>> >> >> hours
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own
>> >> >> shortcomings
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> all to see.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
>> >> >> discount
>> >> >> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their
>> >> >> part.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> have assured them they need to be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer
>> >> >> > without
>> >> >> > MS's
>> >> >> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for
>> >> >> > several
>> >> >> > month
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > several of my clients who provide customized software to
>> >> >> > many
>> >> >> > major
>> >> >> > firms
>> >> >> > across North America.
>> >> >> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support
>> >> >> > SP2.
>> >> >> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or
>> >> >> > switch
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > Linux
>> >> >> > which will be fully supported.
>> >> >> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
>> >> >> > survive
>> >> >> > in this
>> >> >> > world.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Testy
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > message
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> But you may not be the typical user.
>> >> >> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their
>> >> >> >> computer.
>> >> >> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people
>> >> >> >> prefer
>> >> >> >> safe
>> >> >> >> computing.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> >> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this
>> >> >> >> >service
>> >> >> >> >pack.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Testy
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ---
>> >> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> >> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> >> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
>> >> >> > 8/6/2004
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
>> >> > 8/6/2004
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
>
>

[Testy]

Insults are brought on by yourself for not being able to comprehend what I
have stated over and over again. I have supported everything I have said
with as much as I am legally allowed to do so.

Bye-bye

Testy




"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> And now you resort to insults.
> Insults come from those unable to defend their position and need some
> other method to shore it up...you failed.
> Whether your position is defensible or not, you clearly show you are
> not capable of supporting it.
>
> Good bye testy.
> Have fun insulting others.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
>
>
> "Testy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You still cannot read can you. I was part of a group of over 75
> > consultants
> > testing SP2 for several large developers. My conclusions are not
> > mine alone,
> > but a consensus of all involved.
> > The fact that you asked me to name my clients is appalling surely a
> > MS MVP
> > should understand the concept of confidentiality. What you are
> > suggesting
> > would open me to prosecution for not only breech of contract but
> > several
> > International Security laws.
> >
> > Now take your little mind elsewhere as it cannot absorb the most
> > basic of
> > facts.
> >
> > Testy
> >
> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Since the final version just went RTM, it is about the same since
> >> you
> >> could not have possibly adequately tested the RTM if you had a
> >> chance
> >> to install it at all.
> >> So it seems your final judgment on a product is based solely on the
> >> Beta versions.
> >> Based also on this statement of yours:
> >> "I do not have and never will have SP2 installed."
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >>
> >>
> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "I do not have" does not mean "I never had"
> >> >
> >
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1631669,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
> >> >
> >> > Testy
> >> >
> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> > ...
> >> >> You just stated "Nothing which you suggest appears in my post."
> >> >> Or perhaps you are grasping at the technicality it was not in
> >> >> this
> >> >> post.
> >> >> But you did state it in another recent post.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, you deny stating this: "Nope. I do not have and never will
> >> >> have
> >> >> SP2 installed."
> >> >> Which was in your post about 7 hours ago in the SP2 Behavior...
> >> >> thread?
> >> >>
> >> >> Some can be implied by your statement "I do not have and never
> >> >> will
> >> >> have SP2 installed."
> >> >> You can not test it at all much less adequately test without
> >> >> installing.
> >> >> You also can not make an informed recommendation without ever
> >> >> using
> >> >> the final version.
> >> >>
> >> >> You question my comprehension while forgetting what you yourself
> >> >> wrote
> >> >> a short time ago?
> >> >> It seems you have revealed a lot in your various recent posts.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >I beta tested SP2 since the begriming and attended several
> >> >> >TechNet
> >> >> >sessions
> >> >> > for Developers. The results I stated were a collaboration of
> >> >> > over
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > 75
> >> >> > consultants.
> >> >> > And yes my clients do require confidentiality due to the
> >> >> > security
> >> >> > needs of
> >> >> > their respective businesses.
> >> >> > You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension
> >> >> > skills.
> >> >> > Nothing
> >> >> > which you suggest appears in my post.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Testy
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote in
> >> >> > message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> Then you are doing a disservice to your clients.
> >> >> >> You have also said "I do not have and never will have SP2
> >> >> >> installed."
> >> >> >> So you have already ruled out the use of SP2.
> >> >> >> That is really amazing that you can so firmly suggest SP2 is
> >> >> >> no
> >> >> >> good
> >> >> >> since the RTM was only set yesterday.
> >> >> >> You are the only one I know who would claim to thoroughly
> >> >> >> test a
> >> >> >> new
> >> >> >> Service Pack in a little over 24 hours.
> >> >> >> Testing of prerelease versions is a start, but is not an
> >> >> >> adequate
> >> >> >> test.
> >> >> >> Hopefully your clients IT departments will rethink your
> >> >> >> unsound
> >> >> >> advice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I am sure you would not care to post your clients names for
> >> >> >> fear
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> embarrassing them?
> >> >> >> But I am also sure that if they make a judgment based on 24
> >> >> >> hours
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> testing they are not foolish enough to post their own
> >> >> >> shortcomings
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> all to see.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To wait for testing of the final product is one thing but to
> >> >> >> discount
> >> >> >> it so quickly is nothing less than irresponsible on their
> >> >> >> part.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No doubt they will be one of the organizations we hear about
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> next vulnerability is detected and they will be as unprepared
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> have assured them they need to be.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Actually I am perfectly capable of securing my computer
> >> >> >> > without
> >> >> >> > MS's
> >> >> >> > intrusive assistance. I have been beta testing SP2 for
> >> >> >> > several
> >> >> >> > month
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > several of my clients who provide customized software to
> >> >> >> > many
> >> >> >> > major
> >> >> >> > firms
> >> >> >> > across North America.
> >> >> >> > It was decided by overwhelming consensus to NOT support
> >> >> >> > SP2.
> >> >> >> > All of our clients have been informed to stay with SP1 or
> >> >> >> > switch
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > Linux
> >> >> >> > which will be fully supported.
> >> >> >> > I have no choice to go along with the people who pay me to
> >> >> >> > survive
> >> >> >> > in this
> >> >> >> > world.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Testy
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" > wrote
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> >> But you may not be the typical user.
> >> >> >> >> The typical user needs SP-2 to help protect their
> >> >> >> >> computer.
> >> >> >> >> You are free to put your computer at risk but most people
> >> >> >> >> prefer
> >> >> >> >> safe
> >> >> >> >> computing.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> >> >> >> >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Testy" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >I agree 100% but I go further I will never install this
> >> >> >> >> >service
> >> >> >> >> >pack.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Testy
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> >> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> >> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
> >> >> >> > 8/6/2004
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date:
> >> >> > 8/6/2004
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004

[Jacky53]

Carey,

Is it absolutely necessary to have SP1 installed before SP2 can be? I thought MS
was thinking of bundling SP1 with SP2. Perhaps this is no longer the case.

So if I decide to slip stream SP2, I should do it on XP SP1 then? Do I also need
all the hotfixes (especially Rollup) as well or will SP2 have everything in it.

Thanks.


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote:

> I installed SP2 yesterday over an existing Windows XP SP1
> installation. After performing a Disk Cleanup and Defrag,
> I must say this computer is performing better than ever.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
>
> Be Smart! Protect your PC!
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Susan" wrote:
> |
> | Thanks Carey. What a huge endeavor. I didn't see anything that caught my
> | eye though--I have a very bare-bones no frills machine. I do think it
> | might be best to apply SP2 after the next clean install and to do it from
> | Windows Update. It will happen but I won't be the first on the block.
> |
> | Susan