Printable View
Hi there ppl, my question is simple ( but i dont know if its stupid :\ ), cause iv been away from the net and all PC related issues for some time, and i whant to know this:
I have windows XP Pro with all SP1 updates ( the windows version here is a copy ), and i would like to know "how" can i have SP2, if i can where can i download it, and if i will have any problems with it..
Forgive me all if this is a dumb question :\
Source:Quote:
XP SP2--Originally due in late 2003, SP2 was revamped and set on course for a release in the first half of 2004. But Microsoft delayed it until July, then August. Currently, it looks like SP2 could ship around the second week of August.
http://www.winnetmag.com/Windows/Art...326/43326.html
you may have some problems if you are running some type of server because the firewall is enabled by default. also, there have been some program compatibility problems in the beta testing, hopefully all that is worked out now. lastly, you can download the RC-2 version here
u can easily download it from www.microsoft.com this is possible only if u have an original XP installed at ur pc but if u dont have one better not try to get it from the site but get it the same way u got the previous xp i.e. a pirated one! i m sorry but thats the only possible way DUDE!
Egads!Quote:
Originally posted here by akshayakrsh
u can easily download it from www.microsoft.com this is possible only if u have an original XP installed at ur pc but if u dont have one better not try to get it from the site but get it the same way u got the previous xp i.e. a pirated one! i m sorry but thats the only possible way DUDE!
SP2 (much like SP1 and SP1a) contains a list of the most commonly used serials in "pirate" copies of XP. Though the service pack would download it may not install. There are ways to change the serial number - but I'm not instigating this in any way - just pointing it out.
The whole area of denying certain serial numbers from attaining patches is a bit of a gray area (and perhaps left for a seperate thread).
I agree microsoft have every right to protect its investment. However on the flip-side, people running unpatched copies of Windows may be contributing to the spread/traffic of virii and other malicious code. This in turn harms legal versions of Windows / Net traffic / etc etc (yes I am aware people SHOULD patch their machines... but... lol)
Catch 22 anyone?
if microsoft would create a good product, like linux, they wouldn't have to worry so much about updates and patches...Quote:
I agree microsoft have every right to protect its investment. However on the flip-side, people running unpatched copies of Windows may be contributing to the spread/traffic of virii and other malicious code. This in turn harms legal versions of Windows / Net traffic / etc etc (yes I am aware people SHOULD patch their machines... but... lol)
Catch 22 anyone?
let's take netbsd, it's far more safer then windows will ever be, and they managed to do this without having as many resources and money as microsoft!
p.s., i think he has got it by now, this is an OLD thread!
Ummm.. ptrace was a horrible issue for linux for about a year. Exploits came out on a near daily basises even after patches had been applied.Quote:
if microsoft would create a good product, like linux, they wouldn't have to worry so much about updates and patches...
netbsd is not a linux last time I checked. That said, if a fool sets up a poor installation of netbsd I'm sure someone will break in.Quote:
let's take netbsd, it's far more safer then windows will ever be, and they managed to do this without having as many resources and money as microsoft!
When it comes down to it, ultimate security is the responsibility of the user. If they are not willing to deal with it and address it with the resources provided, it doesn't matter how many patches you release or how "secure" you're system is believed to be: it will still be compromised.
Certainly - I'm inclined to agree.
Unfortunatly fallability and popularity seem to co-exist in the computing world.
My life was so much easier with a fountain pen.
You are kidding, right? Do you know how many times a year a BSD and Nix kernel will be updated for various security fixes and enhancements, not to mention the 3rd party patches for other programs that interact with the NIX/BSD systems. Don't ever confuse Windows with being the OS with the only/most/worst patches. Because if you do, then you've never read a bug list for any Operating System -ever-.Quote:
if microsoft would create a good product, like linux, they wouldn't have to worry so much about updates and patches...
Normally, I would obliterate you for something like this. Luckily, Ms Mittens handled it. It is never the OS that determains security, it is how well the admin knows the OS he is in.Quote:
let's take netbsd, it's far more safer then windows will ever be, and they managed to do this without having as many resources and money as microsoft!
wow, i think you guys misunderstood... of course it isn't the OS doing the security, but the default settings that are all switched on on windows make it so vulnerable... and i know, netbsd isn't linux, it is a version of unix.. but the result stays the same... with a default windows installation you need to switch everything off what you do NOT use. and with a default *nix installation you need to switch things on if you want to use them.. this alone makes those OS's much safer then windows...
here are all the patches for the latest netbsd.. there are a lot more for windows XP. (and XP is the safest windows (home user) system out there for now).
see the attachment for more info and why i came to hate windows so much... (in a security manner).
So does the default settings of many linux systems. If someone does a default install of a RH system (last one I checked was RH9 I believe) you end up with 15 services running (ie., sendmail, old apache, old ftp server, etc.).Quote:
of course it isn't the OS doing the security, but the default settings that are all switched on on windows make it so vulnerable...
You are doing a comparison of apples to oranges to mandarins. If you had made the statement, "IMO, netbsd is more secure than windows" probably would be less of an issue.
Last time I checked when I did a default install of Linux, it turned on things I didn't need. Same can be said for many default installs of other OSes (Mac OS X might be an except as would many of the BSD systems) Novell is the one you have to turn things on. That's part of their view point. I mean if you really want to talk security, get a Novell server and use a Windows front end.Quote:
with a default windows installation you need to switch everything off what you do NOT use. and with a default *nix installation you need to switch things on if you want to use them..
Many of the Linux companies want to get their products out to the masses and they are attempting to do this by making it "easier to set things up". This is a method used successfully by MS to get into Novell's market in the past. Microsoft has made significant changes, IMO, with their recent 2003 product so they are learning, albeit slowly on some things.
If you are happy with netbsd, good for you. The reality is that some are stuck with using Windows (their product is only on Windows and doesn't play well with wine or other emulators). Rather than bash the product, how about helping to solve the issue or problem at hand or add to the discussion (MS's responsibility to the general computing society even when it comes to pirated versions)? :)
I've read that the SP2 will go onto ANY XP.
But it will not allow any more updates at all on the pirate copies ............
The logic behind this appears to be that the user [those that are aware of the update ability] will want to keep using their WinXP, so they will go and buy a legit copy ..................
ohhh sh*t, sorry you're right! i never do a default install like that ( at least, i always do the menu install or expert install), sorry, forgot about that!
although i'm still not happy with windows, please forget my last posts, since they are not entirely to the topic... i was letting myself getting a little carried away...
i just happen to have read the file attached in my previous post just yesterday, and although i already knew a great part of it, it still made me very ANTI-microsoft. because you can retrieve so much data when you have access to a windows system...
please forgive my stupidity...
There was a thread discussing that particular text.. Before getting overly upset by that artical.. do your own tests.. look for return traffic.. determine what it realy is.. be very careful of the conspiricy ppl.. test what they say.. before you believe them or discredit them.. All i can say is remember the Alamo,,, ahh sry,.. Remember the Y2K Bug.. M$ was blamed for that .. **** I didn't know they were responsable for Fortan and Cobol and more..Quote:
i just happen to have read the file attached in my previous post just yesterday, and although i already knew a great part of it, it still made me very ANTI-microsoft. because you can retrieve so much data when you have access to a windows system...
People will accept information from anyone who seems credible with out testing..
Mind I am not saying M$ is perfect.. if it was I wouldn't be playing with various versions of *nix.
If I were to say to you that "I found a code in the Fedora core 2 that sent settings information back to Red Hat".. many would shoot me down immediatly and deaf ears would abound... But say the same about MS I would have many Anti-MS supporters posting the report all over..
But if I said I was From the "Linux Developers consortium" or the London Time.. would that make my first statement any more credible?
BTW lepricaun That isn't stupidity.. it is concern and eagerness
Cheers..
well, i did ran a couple of tests myself, and i'm still testing, but for now, all the things i've tested are correct... like the index.dat file (i already knew this though).
but like i said, i'm still testing.. but one thing is sure, there are way to many services running after a clean install.
[EDIT]
i've installed Tiny Personal Firewall, and at first boot up, svchost.exe is connecting to several sites...
here's the list of ip's (and portnumbers):
still have to figure out to where they belong ;)Quote:
208.174.52.30 80
213.254.235.30 80
213.254.235.29 80
62.58.34.73 80
213.254.235.29 137
[/EDIT]