"Mike H" wrote in message
.. .
Back in the days of DOS, software developers often used memory addresses
that they shouldn't have in order to make their software run better..
nothing has changed.. SP2 has been out in beta form long enough for 3rd
party software developers to get their act together..

Right. Most folks find that SP2 works just fine.

"Wislu Plethota" wrote in message
...

-----Original Message-----

"Wislu Plethora"
wrote in message
...

-----Original Message-----
Some programs have problems because they were poorly
written taking advantage in the vulnerabilities Windows
plugged in SP-2.
snip

Would you mind taking a moment to translate this into
English so we can understand it? Can you give an example
of a "poorly written" program? By "poorly written" do
you
mean programs that were written for the platform as it
was originally designed by MS? Wasn't XP the "poorly
written" program?

Nope.


You don't have a clue, do you? Do you understand the
implications of what Jupiter is saying? He says that many
SP2 problems are the result of "poorly written" third-
party programs that were "written [to take]advantage [of]
the vulnerabilities" in XP that were "plugged" by SP2.
So do I expect that a monstrously complex piece of work
like XP should be bug-free? Certainly not. But remember-
almost all of the "vulnerabilities" SP2 is intended to
patch were discovered by sources outside of Microsoft, and
Microsoft did nothing about them until those warnings came
and not before there was time for miscreants to exploit
them. But what Jupiter is saying--and he's not smart
enough to realize what an indictment of MS it is--is that
many of those "vulnerabilities" were well known in the
development community to the extent that programmers were
able to take advantage of them in writing their programs.
But if they were common knowledge among developers, why
didn't Microsoft know about them, and plug them *before*
they caused problems?

The facts are clear: XP was full of holes when first
shipped. Software developers designed programs to run on
the platform as *it* was designed. This is nothing more
or less than prudent development practice, so Jupiter is
hitting below the belt when he refers to "poorly written"
programs being a cause of SP2 problems. If what Jupiter
says is true, then there should be no need for SP2 at
this point, as Microsoft, being aware that holes existed,
could have done the patching *before* the holes were
exploited. The alternative is that Jupiter has no idea
wtf he's talking about. You decide.