|
Windows XP Service Pack 2 (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Callie5 |
interoffice MEMO
Just a note to let you know that under no circumstance should AdPlus users load Windows XP Service Pak 2...
SO COUN'T ME OUT :stongue: |
|
|
| smuncky |
installed it today, works fine with everything, no problems
dont no if its just me, but i think my comp is running a bit faster after the upgrade.
did neone notice an improvemnt on their comps??? |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
Monday, August 16, was set to be D-day for the automatic delivery of Microsoft's Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2).
But at the last minute, the Redmond software vendor decided to push back by at least nine days the Windows Update/Automatic Update launch date for its collection of security fixes and features. Microsoft cited customer demand as the reason for the delay. A number of corporate customers are not ready to deploy SP2 and need to use Microsoft's recently introduced toolkit for temporarily blocking SP2 delivery until they can adequately test the release with their custom and third-party software. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| Ryerson suggested not to install SP2 either because it might create some problems, they are still testing. ;) |
|
|
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
Ryerson suggested not to install SP2 either because it might create some problems, they are still testing. ;) |
yeah i got an e-mail from ryerson telling me not to install sp2 as well. |
|
|
| bluE_Neon |
| Well the only problem as I could say is the windows firewall. Overall it's great, stops a lot incoming spam, etc. expect that it also slows down your internet connection. Main concern is with file sharing. Mainly it affects all of my file-sharing proggies (Soulseek, Msn Messenger). I can always add some ports but I dont know if that'll work :rolleyes: Anyhow, motherboard manufactures are making built-in firewalls and they seem a lot more efficient than the SP2. I have 1 on my motherboard but I haven't tried it out :thepirate |
|
|
| malek |
| if only i had a spare computer, i would install Checkpoint on it!! :D |
|
|
| Mandrick_v |
Since the clean install I blocked all the windows Updates and never installed any of the updates (The reason is I tried installing updates once and had to reformat after that, so much for performance and security).
The key to perfectly working Windows System is Sygate Firewall and Mozilla Browser. I don't even have anti virus installed. The computer is working great for last half a year, absolutely no pop ups (Have messenger and alerter services disabled), no problems with intrusions.
Thats funny, read on slashdot that windows lasts about 18 minutes without security updates or firewall. Slashdot are windows bashers so who knows...
As to service pack 2, I can't install it and I will not risk to install it. |
|
|
| cereal3825 |
| quote: | Originally posted by bluE_Neon
I recommend using SP2 only a computer with good performance, otherwise dont bother. SP2 is really good but it takes a lot of RAM memory and good CPU performance. I used to have AMD XP1800+ which was a decent CPU but ty 512 MB RAM. I highly recommend 1GB of RAM DDR and a higher end manufacturer (OCZ, Kingston or Corsair). Also I recommend a rather faster HDD unless you guys are patient with the loading & :wtf: |
I dont think this is true, but i have no proof either.
Steve
I hate winblows
all about the pengiun! |
|
|
| cereal3825 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
i'm a bit more than end user ;)
but
i'll play along:
1-pop up blocker
2-malicious code blocker
3-warning that an exe is not signed (not really new) but now used thoroughly.
annoyances:
1- firewall, you turn it on, and your msn file transfer get slower than a 56k
2-malicious code blocker... yeah sometimes those sites send you some valid code (the coders will have to fall back on some simpler technologies).
3-being asked to permit or block cookies so very often it becomes annoying.
sp2 packs way more features than this, but they are mostly invisible to the end users ;) |
I dunno about this either. Depends if both sources are behind a NAT, then the transfer goes through MSN's servers, which they throttle the outta the transfer.
Anyways their firewall is garbage, just shut it off
Steve |
|
|
|
|
