Windows XP SP2 - Problems, Problems, Problems

BigC-

I'm not looking for an excuse not to install it. I did install it. In fact I installed it three times, each one a disaster.

What I would like to know on behalf of myself and all the others who have had to uninstall SP2, is do you really think my computer is less secure than if it were running SP2. The benefits I have heard of all seem negligable. Just a lot more settings and bloat.

The negatives on the other hand can be a disaster.

I've read a little about some sort of memory protection but it did not seem to impressive and for the most part relies on special hardware to work anyways. If I am mistaken, please educate me. What if anything can it stop?

How has SP2 improved your computing? What is better now than before? Because the more I think about it it seems like the best that one can hope for is that there computer does not run any worse than it did. I just am not reading a lot of posts from people saying, "man alive! SP2 is great! I can't believe the difference it has made. It's like a whole knew computer, everything smoother, easier and more efficient."

'I haven't noticed the computer running any worse' just seems not to be a condition worth shooting for.

I sure hope Microsoft will re-evaluate real security concerns before releasing Longhorn. Personally, I think we'd all do better to let Microsoft know that if this is what they consider better security they may as well just forget the issue entirely and we can look for legitimate security solutions.


- HandsOff

 

HandsOff,

Most of the people at Wilders are proactive and knowledgeable about security issues, so I will largely agree that many of the SP2 benefits will not largely be noticed by them. Windows XP SP2 firewall was not designed to compete directly with ZA, Outpost, Kerio, Sygate, and Tiny. In fact, antitrust bundling concerns would probably have been voiced here in the States and in front the EU if Microsoft had forcefully entered the firewalling business. Be that as it may, SP2's firewall -- rudimentary as it is -- is still a great step forward for that vast number of people who had no firewall at all. In that regard, Microsoft has been successful in getting a lot of host firewalls up-and-running and bringing such technology to the attention of consumers.

There are, of course, a ton of bugfixes in SP2; although again none of them individually are likely cause for great joy and celebration. Yet, if you were affected by one, you would definitely be glad they fixed it. And some of them do resolve subtle security issues that previously were unknown or little utilized, so of course as a user you wouldn't be jumping up and down. For example, prior to sasser who would have been jumping up and down about some esoteric RPC modification? Prior to SQL Slammer, who would be exhilarated by some Microsoft SQL Server protocol change? Security largely isn't about great leaps in useablility and moments of epiphany, rather security is largely about trudging around and making sure the locks are locked and the doors are shut (so to speak). People may laugh and/or scoff at the new security center functionality... as do I largely... but that is just a superficial change when lots of individually minor security improvements have in fact been made.

As for the memory protection that you were referring to, yes, Data Execution Prevention (DEP) largely relies upon hardware support from the CPU, but that doesn't make software DEP useless. Likewise, what about if you do have an AMD that supports it, or about to purchase a new system that does?

I just think that you are looking for the wrong things from a patch that was oriented at security issues. You shouldn't be expecting huge improvements in useability. Having said that, though, I will say that the one area where I really do feel that SP2 has greatly improved useablity is in WIFI support. The new wireless networking support is a lot better, IMHO.

 

I was able to update to XP SP-2 this past weekend.
My third attempt(with dialup)finally was successful.
The first two attempts stalled out each time after about two hours.
I activated automatic updates and that made the difference.

The first side-effect that I noticed was that ArcaVir's monitor didn't load up after the initial re-boot.That was easily fixed.
I had to deactivate the Windows firewall.No problem with that.

I did notice a slow-down overall,especially during browsing.
I did a "defrag" and so far that seems to have fixed the slowdown issue.

I would have appreciated this service pack a lot more when I was new to the internet.

 

Hi,

did not mean to ignore your responses, i've been offline for quite awhile. The tester and alec obviously have a much higher threshold for frustration than I do.

It's not just that their big fix didn't seem to fix much, the implementation was just way too pushy and controlling. If I want to deactivate a setting, I don't really appreciate having to jump through a bunch of hoops to do it. No one seems to care about all of the time people have wasted on this thing. There is nothing that they did that required any major change. The idea of good default settings and automatic updates is fine. But continually badgering a user with constant nagging, and actively trying to obstruct people who choose other options is just plain bad behavior. I tell my computer what to, and not the other way around. That's why I come here for information in the first place.

The wireless thing is probably a valid point. I do not use wireless, nor do I ever plan to in the future. I ran almost a hundred feet to connect to the other computer in the house rather than go wireless. It just does not fire my rockets to be able to lie in bed and be on the internet, but if other people like like it, that's fine too.

I'm getting close to being suspicious enough of Microsoft to believe that they may actually have made installation and use of SP2, so annoying just to distract from the fact they really didn't do much. In fact, I will even say the think that is blasphemy. SP1a is better than SP2. Wider compatability and less overhead equal more people doing more with less resources. Factor in the pushy condescending attitude and that just seals the deal for me. They can take their SP2 and...

As to the comment about automatic updates helping, I agree, and I see that as a bad sign. Should it really make a difference? Should it be hard to apply a hotfix without "melding" with Microsoft? Why does every solution they come up with have their internet connections probing my computer? Oh, right, I forgot. Because it is so darn hard for them to write a hot fix such that you can be sure if it is installed or not.

the DEP issue is beyond my technical knowledge, but I have a hunch it is just more waste. Why? It's a group of letters that most people don't know what stand for. It has not to my knowledge ever stopped any malware frome being installed on any computer in the real world that has a good security policy in place already. Maybe when I hear how it saved thousands of users at some point in the future I will come to understand.

To be honest, I am more tempted to install Windows 2000 than I am SP2, or, Lord save us, Longhorn.



- HandsOff

 

errmmm ... I was on Win XP (without SP) until Monday when my laptop HD died on me. I have a Dell Inspiron laptop - still have. It lasted nearly 4.5 years without even a Blue Screen.

I still remember back in Jan 2002 when I tried to update to SP1 my system crashed ... so I refused to update at all but keep adding 3rd parties anti-softwares (I am behind Uni firewall by the way).

All I can say is that my system was faster than many of the new ones out there today. (mine is 512 RAM & 1.2 Ghz)

Since I will be installing a new HD this few days. I think I willl update to SP1 or SP1a ... which ever and stick with all the 3rd parties anti-softwares.

I have seen two Win SP2 laptops just now and both were rather slow ... I don´t know what is their problem but all I can say is ... slow. But again I am NOT the best judge on SP2.

So suggestion? SP1 and SP1a only ....?

 

It is a shame some people have so many problems installing sp2. Because the security benefits are real not just imagined. There are some malwares that will infect an sp1 computer and not an sp2. It is a worthwhile update if your computer will tolerate it.


bigc

 

to chew-

It is worth noting that you can download the entire sp1a and save it as a file and install it offline. Updates that require you to be connected are rather obvious ploys to keep you trained to run to microsoft and let them do the thinking for you.

The download is called something deceptive like sp1a network administrator pack, and you are advised to take the express pack and get wired up with microsoft.

To give them there due, it is rather easy to find, download, and install. I'm sure just about any search will get you there but following one of there every present links to how to install a service, or what is a service pack will get you there.

here is the file name and size. I don't want to make it too easy!


xpsp1a_en_x86.exe,
128,097 kb in size

It can easily be saved on a cd, and compliments the useless sp2 cd quite nicely.

If you want the "Genuine CD" you can get it for ten bucks.



-HandsOff
Big Time Network Administrator for Freedom, Justice, and the American Way

 

Things dont look too good for MS from this article:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22336

I seem lucky to be able to run SP2 without any performance loss in my games and only a slight loss in general performance....

 

Hi Firecat,

The statistics are very interesting. I had never thought of IE-7 as being seen as an alternative but it makes sense, and speaks to an issue I have mentioned before. By heaping praise on Microsoft for an effort that is marginal at best we end users are doing ourselves a disservice. I don't doubt that important security issues around IE7 are/were made on the basis of how successfully users were duped into heralding sp2 as a major advance.

My view can be summed up as this. I'm not wasting any more time on sp2, and I can guess how IE-7 is going to turn out. My guess is that what I anticipate is a whole lot more than what I will get. It's a pardox.


- HandsOff

 

sp2 problems

i installed service pack 2 and wished i hadnt bothered.now when i click on my documents or my computer nothing happens,my cursor flashes to tell me it is loading then stops.this is followed by the icons on my desktop disappearing briefly then the pc freezes for about 10-15 secs,any help would be greatfully recieved

 

I am sure with the large amount of issues SP2 has caused. Don't quote me, but IE-7 will be made available for both SP1 and SP2, least I hear a lot of large scale corporations are requesting this of Microsoft.

Personally, I have noticed SP2 affects various machines and if you reimage a machine, that had it installed, may or may not be hindered. But I would not go too far with this Microsoft, Intel, AMD thing, it is illegal for Microsoft to shun out AMD for Intel and prefer to them, AMD has been in the market just as long as Intel. There is no conspiracy. I operate both AMD and Intel, there operating instructions are different, however each one has an advantage over the other.

Also, 64 bit computing is at it's birth and no application is guaranteed to function correctly and will never use this core to its full potential. Buying the best of the best does not guarantee you "Perfect" computing. Your better off waiting another 5-6 years when technology has reached a stable point for 64 bit. If you want to purchase into this market, instead of buying the hardware, purchase into there stock plans.



I shy away from info from the Inquirer, half the articles from there are bogus. Your mosts reliable source for info would either be reading Reuters.com or TheRegister.com

 

Well, the link I provided also had a link to Information Week y'know:

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160403344

Same issue, better source, if thats what you want

Regards,
Firecat

 

I'm running on SP2, and I see no performance degradation in any way, all my progs are running very fast and smooth, and my computer can startup in about 50 seconds to 1 min and not longer than that.
A tip: After installing SP2 successfully, defragment your computer.

I agree with you on that. It's a real shame some people have so many problems installing SP2. But its only a worthwhile update if your computer can tolerate it.
My school installed XP SP2 on some of their older pentium 3 computers, the performance of those computers is just plain sucky IMO.

 

My XP SP2 was jurky and all kind of errors till on day and
In the thread below I had a problem after downloading an arabic prog. which wasnt compatible with SP2
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=73039
After that, decided to FRESH install (HAVE only bare XP CD) but before a complete install I asked here on this board in thread below, whether install SP1 or Sp2 suffices
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=73705
I took the first coming answer from the above thread (means install only XP2 no need for XP1) result was as before errors and heavy. then on the next day I got another answer (means install SP1 then SP2). So, I decided to FORMAT and reinstall again so, I
1- installed XP (virgin) on clean drive, when finnished and before installing drivers
2-installed SP1a and befor drivers
3-installed SP2
3-then drivers
4-then other apps like office etc.
NOW my XPSP2 is smoother than it was in SP1 era. progs like adaware,sbybot not needed any more because it finds nothing. XP feels SOLID without errors and SMOOTH. Thanks to every one here. This is humble experience withSP2

 

My XP came pre-loaded with SP1....maybe thats why SP2 made very little (or none at all) performance difference to me

 

I never read Inquiere or give them the Benefit of the doubt, but this link is a reliable source

My cd is the same, but never seen any huge gain in performance on my home PC. As a home user you will not see much difference, but if your a geek you know that it broke some things on your PC and you had to either uninstall / install the program so that it works again.

On the coroporate side many things can be affected like an ODBC driver curruption etc... etc... most of the OS software is stripped out for business use. No need for solitare or internet games.. etc... etc.. for the user, except admins . Business' usually look at it as this, is my driver going to be compatible with this particular SP if integrated and what dependencies are needed. Before soft packs are intorduced to production they are tested for stability and compatibility for the network and if any changes may need to be made to database' or the network if installed. Soft packs can be a positive or negative if installed.

SP2 was mainly aimed for the end-user and not corporate america.

 

And why would that be I wonder? Because corps have trained IT personnel who are more interested in stable and reliable performance. Or maybe because if someone has to foot the bill for all the man hours that will be lost, that someone is going to have to be shown some tangible benefit?

I am surprised at the Idea of installing sp1 and sp2. I don't see why it would not work. My thought was that installing sp2 to a clean install was the most likely way of avoiding conflicts, however, now I wonder. Maybe it is better logic that if your sp1 is functioning well, and sp2 installs only components that are missing, it has much less potential to destabilize the O/S.

Rather than blame myself for shortsightedness, I will blame Microsoft for not establishing to my satisfaction that their updaters even know what is installed and what isn't.

Which is another question. Does everyone agree to the rather odd fact that MBSA seems to do a better job at knowing what is installed than the updater installer?

-HandsOff

 

Re: sp2 problems

Aggy,
I do not know exactly the forum to get there in this site. But go to "www.google.com" and do a "sysfader" search and look for this site "www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=24363"
To me it was the first site listed, you might be different. But this issue goes back further than you think. It is just that MS (sp2) has made the problem worse (my opinion, but not the only that would say that)

Why I know this is that I own and operate an internet cafe and all pc's are configured the same (hardware & software). But only two pc have this issue. Why?

When you get to this forum, take your time in reading from the start to the end. It will only shed you light on understanding a little more of your issue. Happy reading.

 

Re: sp2 problems

This thread should be merged into this one: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=67051

 

My system was just loaded about 5 days ago with a slipstreamed XP Pro/Sp2 and, my God, the damn thing was like operating in maple syrup- all programs (save WIN ones) were loaded POST OS install... and each was upgraded before and after (hardware and software bits) to be compliant. But tonight I had had enough of the slo mo scene and UNINSTALLED SP2, went through the lengthy updating bit by bit, and guess what? Everything is SINGING NOW!!!! Photoshop is hopping, FF and ThunBird are dancing, my other photo and graphics and multimedia .exes are galloping, power up and power down are happening PDQ, etc. I dunno, fellas, I am not and never was an SP2 fan (as some may recall when I was dealing with XP HOME post SP2 probs)---- so with Outpost properly configured plus tons of other goodies I learned of here (and yes, they all are set up right!), I, too, feel plenty damn safe without the annoyances of SP2- PERIOD. And I am not hearing of otherwise at this point....

 

Re: sp2 problems

Yes and no. Because I think it is only part of the problem. As I said previous "20 pc's configured the same (hardware & software) and it used to be one pc having this issue, now she's running great but two other pc's have that issue. Spooky or what
But that is up to admins and mods to make that judgement if they think it is closely related issue. All I was trying to do for 'Aggy' was guide him to one related discussion that is / might be related to "sp2 problems". Afterall, this is an interactive forum and no one is actually incorrect. We are all only giving our opinion, and what I find most useful and that it assists me in finding more about a core of my own business and helping others out there that have issues that might think a different way that I do.
But Yeah... it should be linked as I related issue. My opinion is to nuke Microsoft. They make billions of dollars and after so many years they can not even fix there own mistakes but just bring a new OS out saying it is more friendly useable and better security. What a load of cow crap. More like you gotta buy our new OS cos it cost a lot of money and we like taking money from you.
Thanks anyhow... maybe you should get in contact with one of the admins

 

In my opinion there are several points of misinformation in this thread that need clarification:

• SP2's nagging / badgering. If you are judging SP2 solely on the Security Center functionality than you are misguided. Period. 1) You can turn it off. 2) It is annoying and superficial. And, 3) It's far from the being the most significant of changes affected by SP2.
  
  
• SP1 must be installed prior to SP2. This is not true. According to Microsoft, "Service packs are cumulative. This means that the problems that are fixed in a service pack are also fixed in later service packs. For example, Windows XP SP2 contains all the fixes that are included in Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1). You do not have to install an earlier service pack before you install Windows XP SP2."
  
  
• Slow performance. In the vast majority of cases this is the temporary and transitional result of the upgrade process itself. SP2 includes re-compiled versions of basically every system executable. That is why it is so large. Every system executable is downloaded in a huge msi or cab file and then must then again be unpacked on to the drive. In most cases this results in file fragmentation and less than optimal file placement on the drive. A thorough defragmentation will resolve the bulk of this problem. In addition, Windows XP includes some Boot Loader and Logical Prefetch optimization techniques that attempt to optimize file I/O based upon past system demands and trends. Therefore, the installation of SP2 basically forces the optimization process to start over... temporarily negatively affecting newly installed SP2 performance in comparison to existing SP1 performance.
  
  
• Incompatibilities. From my experience, the vast bulk of incompatibilities relate to one the following several causes: 1) SP2's built-in firewall; 2) SP2's new limit on the number of unestablished, or "half-open", TCP sessions; 3) SP2's elimination of certain insecure programming practices and the resultant effect on 3rd party apps; and 4) SP2's DEP featureset and people enabling it for all applications when some 3rd party apps are not yet compliant with its requirements. Each of these problems results largely from a conscious decision Microsoft made to emphasive tighter security over legacy application compatibility. They worked very hard to eliminate all incompatibilities were it was consistent with the tigher security defaults to do so, but they could not eliminate all of them. In my opinion this is in most cases a good thing, people will just have to upgrade those apps that written in an insecure fashion or that rely upon insecure mechanisms.
  
  
• SP2 was primarily directed at consumers. If the only enhancements in SP2 were the SP2 Security Center and the SP2 Firewall, then this might be true. However, those were not the only enhancements. Many security default were changed. Many bugfixes were implemented. Code was recompiled with buffer-overflow / stack guard protections enabled. Contrary to some people's apparent belief, there are in fact many serious security vulnerabilities that exist in SP1 that do not exist in SP2, for example: Vulnerability in the Indexing Service Could Allow Remote Code Execution, Vulnerability in Cursor and Icon Format Handling Could Allow Remote Code Execution, Multiple vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, Vulnerability in Windows Shell Could Allow Remote Code Execution, Vulnerability in Compressed (zipped) Folders Could Allow Remote Code Execution, Vulnerability in NetDDE Could Allow Remote Code Execution, Vulnerability in WebDAV XML Message Handler Could Lead to a Denial of Service, etc.
  
  
• "I'll just wait for Internet Explorer 7.0." First, according to industry sources, and apparently the Internet Explorer dev team itself, the updated 7.0 browser will only be made available on XP SP2 and later operating systems (including Windows 2003 SP1 and Windows XP x64 Edition). Second, IE 7.0 will very likely include some browser specific security tightening, for instance anti-phishing techniques and more restrictions / controls on technologies like ActiveX and Javascript; however IE7 will by no means be a replacement for the security additions made in SP2. IE7 will be about increasing functionality as well as some security, not about the elimination of esoteric Win32 API vulnerabilities and poor system service defaults.

 

Oh, I agree, if that were the extent of it I would be doing back handsprings in joy right now. Sadly this is not the case. Those of us who have don't have sp2 installed have to put up with the following little dig from Microsoft: Each time we request to download a security update, we do not get the update or updates requested. Instead we get a big colorful message telling us we do not have sp2 installed (as if we didn't know) and only after this little charade are we allowed to go through the extra step of checking the box to allow us to look for other updates, even though we already know what we want to download, and simply need to download it.

Okay, now pretending that the updating software that scans your computer and saves your profile for future use doesnt already know that you have on previous visits told them to ignore sp2 and look for the specific updates that I am asking for, I could handle getting that paternalistic message once per visit. Microsoft, however, thinks that that would be to leanient a treatment for a sp1 scofflaw. If I have six updates I want to download, I have to go through the same process, six times in a row. And do you think it takes any less time the sixth time than it did the first to analyse my computer and deduce that I do not have sp2 installed? Think again!

And how might I come up with the initial list of six security updates needing to be installed? You might guess that I went to the Windows Update page and asked the wizard of automatic updates what my computer is lacking for happy computing. Well, true I went there, but the updater only produced two pearls of wisdom: 1) the inevitable "You have not been blessed with SP2, my son!" and 2) "there are no available security updates for your kind at the pressent time" - I am paraphrasing, of course.

Somehow I can't believe the analysis (aside for the sp2 pronouncement) since I specifically did not install a particular update that caused some problems and deferred it for a later time. What to do....I decide download and run the MBSA. (Microsoft Baseline Security Analysis - for IT professionals. Naturally for professional. A mere home user wouldn't care less if he were vulnerable to remote code execution!) So anyway, I run the MBSA. the results were mixed.

It found 7 security updates that it could not find on the computer. Two of them were plainly displayed as options for uninstall, so I guess microsoft didn't look there. The other five included a couple I knew already and 3 that were recent updates. 7 missing "criticle" updates...you'd think that would be enough to make me fail. Actually no. it recommended checking on them but it was not enough to fail the test...until...

...you guessed it. Big RED X. I have failed the test. I do not have sp2 installed. Apparantly no matter if every other test criteria is met, I will fail without SP2...and every time I run the analysis I will have to watch this little theatric performed by the program.

I seem to recall in the past for certain updates a box you could check "do not show this update again" Presumably MS knows that certain people can not for whatever reason (including it's poor performance, and inefficiency) can not install this update even if they wanted to. It would be a kindness to give these people a way to live in peace and harmony with all of the microsoft sites they conduct business with.

Who ever said microsoft was kind?

'So what are our orders Bill?'

'Keep badgering them of course, you idiot? How long have you worked for microsoft now? 2 Weeks? and you still need to ask a question like that? Get with it or go work for the Peace Corps!"

As to Explorer 7 for sp2 only? I laugh at that. They don't have the guts. If they are stupid enough to do that, then they are doing more to promote Firefox than they are to promote SP2. And that is a lot of promoting.


-HandsOff

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
oh, I wanted to address this too. Alec, I do not believe Hadi was stating that sp2 does not include the spl updates. I am understanding him to be saying that in his experience, and the experience of the others to whom he refered, the best result was achieved when they installed sp2 after sp1. I for one, appreciate Hadi's input, as it throws new light one what has been an insurmountable problem for me.
Further supporting this position, would be the recommendations (which I did not follow) of many who said installing as an update was the preferred installation. I did not see any advantage...but i can admit when (and if I ever) make a mistake

-HandsOff

 

Hi all

This is to update everyone who are concerned with updating to WinXP SP2.

Initially, I was concerned too because of so many negative threads on the forum about WinXP SP2. I resisted the update ... but because of my HD failure I had to install a new one and in the process I updated to WinXP SP1a but the process I used was being compromised according to my Uni security expert. (I went to WindowsUpdate without four crucial security patches ...)

So the Uni IT security banned me from connecting to the net unless I did a total reformat and update to WinXP SP2. I had no choice but to update.

I took the following steps.

1)I took their advice and reformatted my HD.
2)Then I install Win XP Home Ed.
3)Then I immediately install WinXP SP2(CD method).
4)Then defrag.
5)Then installed AV, All the anti softwares.
6)Then update via WindowsUpdate.
7)Then all necessary drivers.
Then applications.

Now, after 2 days, I must say my system is still as stable and there is no sign of slowing down. In fact there is a slight slow down but negligible to be frank. The system seems stable. No problem whatsoever so far.

All my anti-softwares are happily working with each other and there is no clash or compatible issue as far as I know ... I even downloaded Microsoft AntiSpyware on top of what I got i.e. all the Javacool's stuff, on Firefox, McAfee, Prevx, Ewido, Ad-aware etc.,

So my conclusion is to do a totall reformat if you want to WinXP SP2 to work nicely. Just don't delete or mess with the Registry before you install WinXP SP2. You can mess with Registry later.

I have updated all patches ever since.

But the annoying thing is that WinXP SP2 constantly asked me to put WindowsUpdate on Automatic mode ... LOL! Nope! I will not for the moment. I just want it to tell me there is New update that's all and I will do the rest.

Oh ya, I have Dell Insprion 8100, 1.2Ghz with 512RAM just incase you are worrying that it will slow down your system. The slow down is negligible.

So there you go.

Chew