OT: Windows XP Update Service Pack 1


I just figured that i would "warn" others about this. You can find my thoughts / experience about the subject by clicking on the link below. Sean
>

most recent Windows XP Update
sean

Showing 5 responses by sean

I tried re-installing it and things went "fine" this time, at least so far. I'll give it a try and see how things go from here. If they bottom out, i'll be switching back to Win2K. Sean
>
Jeff, my download took a matter of seconds due to a phenomenally fast connection. It was the rest of the installation that took the time on my end. As i mentioned, i had no problems after deleting and trying to do a re-install later in the day. I have to wonder if there wasn't a "glitch in the Matrix" as my computer tried to dial up to the internet via my phone line during the original install. My guess is that the there was a hiccup with my primary connection and may have distorted the data transfer.

For the record, others have reported having no problems with the download. Others have said that they have noticed a slow down on their puters after installation. I'm still somewhat up in the air on the speed part right now, but will give it some time before passing judgment. Sean
>

PS... Yes, you have a "killer" computer : )
Tok20000: I've been checking my download speeds via the test provided at Toast.net on a somewhat regular basis since i hooked up my "super connection" ( cable modem ) two weeks ago. I've been averaging appr 1150K and was able to peak at 1650K on several occasions. Needless to say, what would normally be a "monster" of a download on my dial-up ( which averaged 46K - 52K ) is now a matter of seconds ( literally ).

I was also alerted to the fact that this type of connection drastically increases the potential for hackers to access your computer. This is due to the fact that you are always connected to the net ( so long as the puter is on, etc..). As such, i was directed to this website to check computer security. Luckily, i passed with flying colours although a few people that i've forwarded to that site said their puters failed miserably in terms of security and "hackability". I'm VERY glad of this as i've had hackers inside my puter before*, so it was good to see that my security programs are working. Sean
>

* The "hackers" happened to be someone that frequented both this forum and AA. I do not know who it was, but they intercepted some of my emails and played some TALL games by sending out "less than polite" responses to people that were trying to contact me via email. The only way that i found this out is that those same people contacted me shortly after that and wanted to know why i had said the things that i did in my previous emails. Needless to say, i had no idea as to what they were talking about since i had never even seen the initial email that the hackers had previously intercepted and downloaded off of the server. Talk about a mess and the potential for misunderstandings ( to say the least ). I'm just glad that the people that this happened to were pretty understanding and knew me better than to think i would do / say those things to them.
After posting the above, i followed my own links to see if they came up okay. As such, i ran my computer through the same tests that i had done earlier today. Here is a copy of what i posted in the same thread on AA:

Just for laughs, i just went to a website that i had visited a few times prior to installing the aforementioned Microshaft XP Service Pack 1. It is a site that checks / verifies the "security" of your puter i.e. checks to see if you have open ports, etc... Everything had always come up that i was in "stealth" mode, which was the highest security that you can have. After installing XP Service Pack 1, the same tests had shown that i was extremely vulnerable to attack and had several ports open. Just to make sure, i went back and ran the same tests over again. Needless to say, i got the same results i.e. reduced security, tons of open ports, etc... Obviously, that was not good.

So, once again and for the third time today, i went back and deleted XP Service Pack 1. After purging my computer of what is effectively a "Microshaft authorized virus" and re-booting, i flew over to the same website to check my security status. Lo and behold, i was back to being "fully protected" and operating in "stealth" mode.

As such, the obvious conclusion is that Microshaft's latest XP update is VERY undesirable. What was supposed to offer patches to repair previous problems and improve the security of your computer by reducing vulnerability to hackers had actually done just the opposite. XP Service Pack 1 actually increases vulnerability and basically opens your front door and waves the hackers in.

With that in mind, i would HIGHLY recommend that anyone that has installed XP Service Pack 1 to visit this site and check their vulnerability. It is a good idea to do this even if you aren't running XP or have yet to download Service Pack 1. For the record, Service Pack 2 does not create any problems so far as i can tell and it is still on my computer. Once again, i would like to hear from those of you that are willing to share your results of the testing. Sean
>

https://grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
Aboldor, thanks for the response. Someone on AA also suggested that installing the service pack simply set my computer back to "default" and / or changed other programs in the way that i had them configured. As such, i guess that Microshaft should basically say ( without the 6 pages of legal jargon ) "you will have to reconfigure your computer after downloading this upgrade". I did not expect this "Service Pack" to take me backwards, only to enhance what was already there. As such, i am ready to chuck all of this crap and go back to the old tin can and string routine....

Ozfly: Glad that at least something good came of all of this. Hopefully, a few others will be alerted to their potential for "foul play".

Lugnut: I too am using Norton, which has normally worked fabulously for me. Downloading this service pack seems to have played with more than a few things, possibly altering the performance of even that program. Sean
>

Sean
>