> I've been doing that. Add a CD changer and a 7-way flash card reader,
> and you start to run out of drive letters, not to mention running into
> applications that are very SURE of themselves that the CD it wants to
> check for copy protection couldn't possibly be way out on M: :-(
I can't help you with the flash reader or cd changer, but you *could*
use a fancy bootloader like GRUB to automagically hide all the
partitions you don't need on boot.
James opines that this is OT rather than EE so I'll change the tag.
>> I have an as yet unsolved XP SP2 problem - any input most welcome. PC
>> (not mine) upgraded to XP will connect to internet using dialup
>> connection but will not show any sign of internet connectivity.
>> Doesn't seem to be caused by firewall or content settings.
Fixed it !!!! (more or less :-) )
Removing SP2 did NOT cure the problem.
Turned out that Zone Alarm had been installed quite unnecessarily and that
SP2 had broken it.
Removing SP2 did not fix it.
There was no indication (that I noted) that ZA was running. If I had dug
more I may have realised.
Removing ZA fixed most problems. I wonder whether to put SP2 back on now ?
:-)
You probably don't have a lot of choice. There are already a number of
vulnerabilities in pre-SP2 systems that won't be fixed except by SP2. Since
you are on a dial-up you aren't the problem that a broadband connected
system is, but running an unpatched system is not only risky for you these
days, but it is very inconsiderate of the rest of the users of the net.
> You probably don't have a lot of choice. There are already a number of
> vulnerabilities in pre-SP2 systems that won't be fixed except by SP2.
That's Microsoft's choice. If they wish to abandon their older installed
base of users who find Sp2 a major problem they can blithely choose to do
so. And probably will as such users are of minor financial importance to
them.
> Since you are on a dial-up you
not my PC, but yes it's dialup.
> aren't the problem that a broadband connected
> system is, but running an unpatched system is not only risky for you these
> days, but it is very inconsiderate of the rest of the users of the net.
That's a very company line line :-)
I see your point, but if SP2 provides safety then all the concerned users
upgrade to SP2 then they won't be at risk regardless. (I'm aware that a pool
of unmodified PC's can provide a reservoir to "attack" from). A certain
number of users are going to have their systems crippled by SP2. Expecting
that all such buy new PCs is a bit rough - but is in fact close to the party
line from Microsoft (or at least, it was at the seminar I went to).
As it happens, the problem seems to have been a dual one. The PC is owned by
a lady with a degree of intellectual impairment but ferocious browsing
style. She downloads all and sundry and her machine usually bristles with
adware and the like. I and others try to persuade her to be as discerning as
she can. [[I just KNOW the foregoing is liable to attract comment - pse
remember to keep it civil so we don't disturb the dragons :-) ]]. Every now
and then I can't run fast enough to avoid fixing it up :-). In this case she
had Norton software and also Zone Alarm. While it was not evident (to me)
that either were active they both had an impact on system operation.
Removing ZA gave the PC back its browser function and removing Norton gave
it back email capability. Very interesting. A clean XP install would have
been simpler. This always introduces other complications, but I think it may
have to be the way it goes in future.
> >>I wonder whether to put SP2 back on now ?
>
> >You probably don't have a lot of choice. There are already a number of
> >vulnerabilities in pre-SP2 systems that won't be fixed except by SP2.
>
> That's Microsoft's choice. If they wish to abandon their older installed
> base of users who find Sp2 a major problem they can blithely choose to do
> so. And probably will as such users are of minor financial importance to
> them.
There's a fundamental problem here that has gotten far too little
press coverage. Windows evolved from a non-networked system and both
design and operational mindset are still stuck back in those days.
Most windows users don't want to have to deal with security, they just
want things to work. This is, of course, what makes it so easy to
write viruses that target windows. Everyone bashes Microsoft for
this, but yet when they take the first baby-steps towards fixing the
problem (which is largely what SP2 was) they get accused of "breaking"
things.
Another thing about SP2 is that it includes patches to limit the
amount of damage an infected machine can cause on the network. A good
example here is that they removed the raw socket layer from the kernel
in SP2. This is a grotesque hack (and I believe easily circumvented)
but it does prevent (for the moment) virii from sniffing your local
network and injecting illegal packets onto it.
This is most definitely not a case of Microsoft abandoning their
installed user base. This is a case of Microsoft, for once, stepping
up to the plate, admitting they have a serious problem, and taking
the first steps to deal with it. The Microsoft user community is
going to have to accept a *lot* more of this if they ever want their
systems to be more secure and free from virii. And those of us who
largely don't use Windows will be quite glad when all those infected
Windows machines stop sending spam and otherwise clogging up our
networks.
I have SP2 on the desk machine(xppro) & the laptop(xphome). Everything
working fine so far. Between that and my provider (earthlink) blocking
virii, most of the mischief gets blocked. I too, go everywhere with careless
abandon. I keep the system on autoupdate with Norton & Microsoft. Pop ups
have to be manually accepted if I want them now. No more cascading porn
sites when I am on an innocent search.
I don't know if my PicStart still works or not, have not been there lately!
Built in Firewire broke on the desk machine, but I think that hardware.
I had to remove ZoneAlarm due to interference about a year back.
> Everyone bashes Microsoft for
> this, but yet when they take the first baby-steps towards fixing the
> problem (which is largely what SP2 was) they get accused of "breaking"
> things.
There's no doubt that they broke the PC I was working on. It may be that
they did it to make thjings better, but it was definitely broken when they
had finished, and is stayed broken when SP2 was removed. Sp2 interacted with
the existing Zone Alarm installation and Norton (expired updates)
installation and the end result was it would web connect but not use IE6 or
OE. You could still ping sites on the net.
I don't mind Microsoft making things better, and I accept that a certain
amount of damage is inevitable, but I would have hoped that such major
packages as Zone alarm and Norton whatever would be traeted properly by SP2.
>> Everyone bashes Microsoft for
>> this, but yet when they take the first baby-steps towards fixing the
>> problem (which is largely what SP2 was) they get accused of "breaking"
>> things.
>
> There's no doubt that they broke the PC I was working on. It may be that they
> did it to make thjings better, but it was definitely broken when they had
> finished, and is stayed broken when SP2 was removed. Sp2 interacted with the
> existing Zone Alarm installation and Norton (expired updates) installation
> and the end result was it would web connect but not use IE6 or OE. You could
> still ping sites on the net.
>
> I don't mind Microsoft making things better, and I accept that a certain
> amount of damage is inevitable, but I would have hoped that such major
> packages as Zone alarm and Norton whatever would be traeted properly by SP2.
You mean, such major *competing* packages ? So far I have read lots of
reports on SP2 breaking ZA and Norton av. Could someone confirm that he
has installed SP2 and did no have to remove ZA and/or Norton av ?
I installed SP2 on 2 computers.
1. P4mobile with XP PRO
2. old HP desktop P3 with XP PRO
Not 1 single problem with ZA or anything else.
These 2 computer have been running with SP2
since it was released.
Al
{Original Message removed}
>I installed SP2 on 2 computers.
> 1. P4mobile with XP PRO
> 2. old HP desktop P3 with XP PRO
> Not 1 single problem with ZA or anything else.
> These 2 computer have been running with SP2
> since it was released.
Reports vary widely.
The report on problem solving that I originally referred to was one of the
longest I have seen and with many peripheral references. It seems a modicum
of good luck is desirable on older systems - some work perfectly, as you
found. I don't know if Pro or home makes any difference.
> Could someone confirm that he has installed SP2
> and did no have to remove ZA and/or Norton av ?
Hi Peter,
I can. I have Norton SystemWorks 2003 and it runs fine after I installed
Windows XP SP2. SystemWorks also includes Norton AntiVirus (besides other
utilities). Everything is working fine. I'm getting my AntiVirus updates no
problem.
It is however disconcerting to see people having a lot of problems with SP2
and others having very little or no problems with SP2. I'm fortunate that
I'm in the latter category (through no power of my own). I frequent the
Microchip Forums a lot and I see some people have issues with Windows XP/
Windows XP SP2 that I have not experienced. It really makes you wonder
sometimes why this is so.
> Reports vary widely.
> The report on problem solving that I originally referred to was one of the
> longest I have seen and with many peripheral references. It seems a modicum
> of good luck is desirable on older systems - some work perfectly, as you
> found. I don't know if Pro or home makes any difference.
>
Another widely varying report, FWIW: I installed SP2 on
this machine (1.4 GHz P4, age approx 3 yrs.) and it did
terrible things. Sure glad I had (and used) Norton Ghost
prior to the install. Restored the whole disk.
Then, updated the Netgear router firmware and the Linksys
card driver, un-installed Zone Alarm and AdSubtract, and
re-installed SP2. Perfect! No problems found to this
day! I have since re-installed AdSubtract without
causing damage; it may have been unnecessary to remove
it in the first place.
> WinXP SP2 and Norton AV appear to play nice together on my machine (Dell
> Inspiron 8100 laptop).
Ditto here, although on one machine I made it a point to install an update
to NAV *after* SP2. It does seem like SP2 doesn't always find NAV for the
"Security Center", but NAV works just the same. I have SP2 installed on two
machines, shortly to make it to a third. Both of those machines are of the
Heinz 57 variety.
> Peter L. Peres wrote:
>
>> Could someone confirm that he has installed SP2
>> and did no have to remove ZA and/or Norton av ?
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I can. I have Norton SystemWorks 2003 and it runs fine after I installed
> Windows XP SP2. SystemWorks also includes Norton AntiVirus (besides other
> utilities). Everything is working fine. I'm getting my AntiVirus updates no
> problem.
Ok, thanks.
> It is however disconcerting to see people having a lot of problems with SP2
> and others having very little or no problems with SP2. I'm fortunate that
> I'm in the latter category (through no power of my own). I frequent the
> Microchip Forums a lot and I see some people have issues with Windows XP/
> Windows XP SP2 that I have not experienced. It really makes you wonder
> sometimes why this is so.
Probably a certain firm redefined determinism in computing ;-)
> I installed SP2 on 2 computers.
> 1. P4mobile with XP PRO
> 2. old HP desktop P3 with XP PRO
> Not 1 single problem with ZA or anything else.
> These 2 computer have been running with SP2
> since it was released.
Ok, thanks. Are thes on a netowk, dialup, or dsl/cable ? The problems
occur with dsl/cable modem connections where za and sp2 conflict as I
hear.
I have Windows XP pro, and I installed SP2. I also use ZoneAlarm Pro, and
McAfee (not Norton) Antivirus.
The service pack did NOT break either package. By default, XP SP2 will turn
on the WINDOWS FIREWALL. This may be what will interfere with your existing
programs. It's a simple matter to disable the windows firewall, though.
Odd thing: When I installed the service pack, it knew that I already had a
firewall installed, and didn't enable the windows firewall. A couple of
weeks after the installation, the windows firewall got mysteriously turned
on. (I didn't do it myself, I promise). I just had to disable it again.
What SP2 DID affect is my digital camera. (A cheap, low resolution INTEL usb
camera that doubles as a webcam). I always keep my camera connected. If I
try to access it now, My machine bluescreens and locks up hard. To work
around this, I have to unplug the usb cable from it, reconnect it, and then
access the camera.
There has also been some strange behavior with my USB ports, which may be
the cause of the above problems. It's possible that removing them all from
device manager and letting the system re-detect them would fix the problems,
but I don't use my usb ports much (or my camera either), so I really don't
care a whole lot.
On a couple of XP machines at work, SP2 needed me to delete all my printers,
and re-add them. It also required a newer version of the Novell Client, and
an upgrade patch for Nero Burning Rom.
The pop-up blocking and active-x control that SP2 adds are real nice
features. If you use IE, I recommend SP2.
At 04:55 AM 10/3/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>>> Everyone bashes Microsoft for
>>> this, but yet when they take the first baby-steps towards fixing the
>>> problem (which is largely what SP2 was) they get accused of "breaking"
>>> things.
>>
>> There's no doubt that they broke the PC I was working on. It may be that
they {Quote hidden}
>> did it to make thjings better, but it was definitely broken when they had
>> finished, and is stayed broken when SP2 was removed. Sp2 interacted with the
>> existing Zone Alarm installation and Norton (expired updates) installation
>> and the end result was it would web connect but not use IE6 or OE. You could
>> still ping sites on the net.
>>
>> I don't mind Microsoft making things better, and I accept that a certain
>> amount of damage is inevitable, but I would have hoped that such major
>> packages as Zone alarm and Norton whatever would be traeted properly by SP2.
>
>You mean, such major *competing* packages ? So far I have read lots of
>reports on SP2 breaking ZA and Norton av. Could someone confirm that he
>has installed SP2 and did no have to remove ZA and/or Norton av ?
>
>Peter
>_______________________________________________
>http://www.piclist.com
>View/change your membership options at
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries Minneapolis, MN USA .....freezeKILLspam.....baloneyvisi.com
paradise.net.nz>
