Just installed XP SP2

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 10, 2004, 12:47 am

so far it seems to be working fine. The firewall update is kinda like zonealarm. Each time a program attempts a connection you are asked if you want to block the transmission or allow it.

Haven't dug too deeply into the other changes/updates. No adverse affects so far. It does seem to bug you incessantly if you don't let it turn auto update on.

Ransure · Post by **Ransure** » August 10, 2004, 12:54 am

Im giving it a week, just like with EQ expansions... fix some things... then Ill install it

noel · Post by **noel** » August 10, 2004, 1:50 am

I have it installed as well. I'm kind of reluctant to take down Zone Alarm to make use of the provided firewall, but I suppose I can give it a try.

As Neost said, no problems as yet. I'd highly recommend all of you install it as soon as possible. This SP is really the security pack for XP.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 2:02 am

Downloading it as I type this. Says it has new version of OE and IE but I assume that just means more secure versions.

From Slashdot:

"Service Pack 2 for Windows XP has been released to manufacturers (RTM), is available to MSDN customers, and will soon be available to all via Windows Update and Microsoft sites. At ~ 250 megs, the download is big, and Microsoft will be offering the option of getting it on CDs. The much awaited Service Pack comes with many security updates (new NX and DEP protection), extra features (firewall, security center), and improvements for Windows. New versions of IE and OE come with the release, as well as improvements in the wireless networking field. So far, the service pack seems to be very stable (no known major issues) and does seem to speed up most systems. A review of SP2 Final with some limited download links is available at Neowin.net. I'd urge all users (pirate users too) to deploy the service pack and benefit from the genuine effort Microsoft have made with regards to security in this release." We did cover this recently but since this is a major deal, we figured people would want to know more.

Many users have questioned why illegal PIDs are being allowed on a Windows XP SP2 installation when they were blocked in previous betas. This is due to Microsoft's new approach on security in Service Pack 2 to prevent any further Windows XP machines from getting infected with viruses and malicious attacks. Microsoft's Gary Schare answers:

"There have been a number of discussions on this newsgroup regarding whether SP2 will install on non-genuine (aka "pirated") versions of Windows. Here is the official Microsoft position on this topic:

We expect that nearly all Windows XP users, running genuine or pirated Windows, will have access to the security technologies in SP2. The same users that were blocked from installing SP1 - those that have used a small set of legacy pirated product keys - will be blocked from installing SP2. We believe that there are very few systems in use today that use these keys -- in other words, the pirates have moved on to other keys which we are not blocking.

So how do we charaterize our policy?

We want to make sure that the broadest number of people can install SP2. The nature of malicious attacks on computer users is constantly changing and we will continue to evaluate how we deal with security updates for pirated versions of Windows to best protect our genuine Windows customers.

Thanks,

Gary Schare
Microsoft"

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 3:54 am

SP2 update went well. It appears to work fine with shenanigan key changed corporate editions. There are a bazillion full WinXp Pro Install CDs with SP2 integrated on the newsgroups. Nice to have if you fry your HD and need to reinstall XP w/out getting updates again.

Update site works after installing SP2. Nice work MS!

Here's a quick review and discussion of SP2 if you're paranoid!

http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=2 ... egory=main

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 10, 2004, 10:39 am

It's not on the Windows Update site yet!

Menelaos · Post by **Menelaos** » August 10, 2004, 10:53 am

You need to download the standalone version provided to developers, OEMs and network administrators. Let me find the link for you rq...

Menelaos · Post by **Menelaos** » August 10, 2004, 10:58 am

Here you go!

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en

Executeable XP SP2

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 11:17 am

man the site is gettin hammered, i'm only getting 2.2 MB/s

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 11:23 am

heh I got it before the main hammering started me thinks.. was pretty fast yesterday!

Seems to run fine, one thing I have noticed (and not sure if it is SP2 but I expect it) is that I get a screen full of garbled letters for a second before the Windows splash screen pops up.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 10, 2004, 12:31 pm

Bittorrent site for DL.

http://sp2torrent.com/index.php

Menelaos · Post by **Menelaos** » August 10, 2004, 2:34 pm

ONLY 2.2 MEGAbytes/second? That's pretty fast if you ask me!

That's like a direct T3 line to their server or something! hehe

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 3:18 pm

yeah i was just being a dick

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » August 10, 2004, 4:45 pm

Here's a retarded question -> Is SP1 required to install?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 4:50 pm

SP1 should be required to access a TCP port.

wait that wouldnt work.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 10, 2004, 6:08 pm

Sargeras wrote:Here's a retarded question -> Is SP1 required to install?

I don't believe so.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 10, 2004, 8:03 pm

Only 580KB/Sec here. Damn DSL is pokey!

DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update.

!

Menelaos · Post by **Menelaos** » August 10, 2004, 11:45 pm

Hehe I'm extremely proud of my ~1.15 Mb/s max download from my residential cable modem. Fastest residential connection I've ever had, having had DSL, Satellite, and Cable modem in California over the past few years. This cable service in Brooklyn, New York, has been, suprisingly, the fastest service I've ever had. Possibly because not many are on my node, shrug.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 11, 2004, 2:10 pm

Installed it on 2 PCs. No problems and seems to be working fine.

Both had SP1 already installed though. I'll try it on a fresh XP install next week. I don't see why it wouldn't work since service packs are normally cumulative.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » August 11, 2004, 9:50 pm

I am pulling it down now. I have about 60 PC's to update but will probably only run it on a couple at first to see how it goes. I also hear there is a nice new setting in it to allow me to turn off local administrator access for most users on their own machine. I have had to allow it because of installs and whatnot but anything that allows me to lock things down from some of the endusers is a good thing.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » August 12, 2004, 12:19 am

Sargeras wrote:Here's a retarded question -> Is SP1 required to install?

Not a retarded question at all. Generally in the past Microsoft OS service packs have been cumulative, e.g. you could go from base NT 4.0 to SP6 with one download and not have to apply SP 1 through 5 before you could apply SP6.

I applied it to my gf's computer to see what the changes were. I like the Security Center though it appeared to be confused about McAfee VirusScan. The firewall is inobtrusive and does its job well. I'll be applying this to my PCs tomorrow.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » August 12, 2004, 4:30 am

Won't let me install on my pirate corporate copy. Guess that's what I get for being the first on my block with free XP back in the day. :-/

Now that I have a decent job, I guess I should buy a copy, but I don't want to have to reinstall all my tons of semi-legal software and re-download all the hacks and cracks to make it all work right. What a pain!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 12, 2004, 10:19 am

It's supposed to work on all copies, pirated or not. You might want to try one of those serial number changers.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 12, 2004, 11:01 am

There are a short list of reg numbers that wont work (same numbers that didn't work on SP1). Most pirated versions will be able to run it just fine.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 12, 2004, 12:16 pm

Just installed it last night, First time I booted up it went thru some normal stuff that Ide expect. This morning when I booted up it took painfully long, has anyone else experience longer boots?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 12, 2004, 1:33 pm

Mplor wrote:Won't let me install on my pirate corporate copy. Guess that's what I get for being the first on my block with free XP back in the day. :-/

Now that I have a decent job, I guess I should buy a copy, but I don't want to have to reinstall all my tons of semi-legal software and re-download all the hacks and cracks to make it all work right. What a pain!

You just need the little prod key changer thingy.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2004, 3:19 pm

I think SP2 broke my Nero. It complains about my version of Windows not being compatible or something. Burned a DVD and it failed verification. Didn't have much time to troubleshoot it though yesterday. Will have to investigate further today.

(Edit - There was a new version of Nero released today. )

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 13, 2004, 3:38 pm

I've noticed longer boot times on my laptop.

I haven't rebooted my desktop box since the initial installation reboot. When I get home I'll reboot a couple of times to see if it takes longer than i'm used to it taking.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 13, 2004, 3:47 pm

I have a pseudo VPN client I run on my laptop provided to my from my company. Since installing SP2, I'm unable to use the client.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 13, 2004, 4:45 pm

Does your vpn client log connections? Might try that to see why the tunnel isn't being established. I'd also look to see if possibly that program is being blocked by mistake.

You can setup exceptions in your new windows firewall in the security center. If you know the ports used by your client, try adding those ports specifically in the exceptions and see if it works.

EDIT: Don't mean to sound like i'm talking to a noob, you've probably already looked at those things. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 13, 2004, 4:58 pm

I have looked at those things... the client is allowed by the firewall. I've even disabled the (Windows) firewall. I run zonealarm pro with SP1...

It's interesting really. I just rolled back to SP1 and confirmed my fears. With SP1, I start the client, open Outlook, and get my email from my companies mail server.

With SP2, I see Outlook begin to check the mail, I watch the VPN log and see that Outlook requests and resolves the name of the mail server, but I never see the query for mail go out. No settings have been changed on my mail or VPN client, so I think it likely that somehow SP2 changes the signature of Outlook to something the VPN client doesn't recognize.

Anyway, not really a big deal for me at the moment, but just wanted to report it as an issue. I'm running SP2 at home with no issues.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2004, 5:06 pm

Yeah there are some reports of SP2 messing with P2P clients etc. Haven't found much in detail yet about it though.. and I only run those programs on a separate computer which I haven't had time to update with SP2 yet (will this weekend) so haven't tested personally.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 13, 2004, 5:32 pm

check the NIC settings for netbios over tcp/ip. I think the default now is to disable netbios over tcp/ip, which is probably a good thing but if your exchange server requires it that could be your issue.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 13, 2004, 7:46 pm

Thanks for the advice. I actually have had NetBIOS over TCP/IP turned off for some time now. My company's mail servers are strictly IP (we don't use Exchange either). Thanks though!

Edit: Because English is HARD.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 15, 2004, 4:07 pm

Sionistic wrote:Just installed it last night, First time I booted up it went thru some normal stuff that Ide expect. This morning when I booted up it took painfully long, has anyone else experience longer boots?

yup, it was just that first boot, all's fine now!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 15, 2004, 4:27 pm

The initial installation reboot will always take longer than normal since it's finishing up the installation in the background.

<insert more technical explanation here>

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » August 15, 2004, 5:54 pm

Oddly enough my Winamp (v5.03) failed under SP2. Downloaded new version 5.04 and all is well. The firewall dislikes Audioscrobbler though.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 15, 2004, 8:31 pm

Aslanna wrote:The initial installation reboot will always take longer than normal since it's finishing up the installation in the background.

<insert more technical explanation here>

I meant the first boot after the initial restart.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 16, 2004, 8:13 pm

Neost, I found some more information on my problem, and I thought I'd share it with you since you tried to help. I'm working with my IT department to make sure they address the issue through either a fix from MS, or a more likely fix from Juniper. Thanks again though.

Juniper Networks (the current owners of NetScreen SSL-VPN concentrators) just sent out a "Juniper Product Alert" asking owners of NetScreens NOT to upgrade to XP SP2. Apparently, something changed between the last Release Candidate of SP2 Juniper tested and the released SP2 that "resulted in a compatibility issue". According to Juniper, Microsoft has acknowledged it as an "issue" and is working on a fix.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 17, 2004, 12:26 am

Thanks, for the heads up.

Our vpn's are primarily cisco. Haven't heard any issues from users that have upgraded.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 19, 2004, 2:34 pm

Microsoft Corp. has issued a hotfix for Windows XP Service Pack 2 to solve a problem about which many users have complained: programs that attempt to connect to loopback addresses other than 127.0.0.1 get error messages.

The problem—one of several that have appeared in the newly released SP 2—has been reported by many VPN users since Microsoft introduced the second release candidate in June. However, since it is a hotfix, it is not fully supported. It is expected that Microsoft will issue a more permanent fix in the future.

Might be related. Try the hotfix and see!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 19, 2004, 4:13 pm

Windows for Workgroups is working just fine for me!

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » August 19, 2004, 4:59 pm

I ran into an issue with ghosting a new system setup with Ghost. Source drive had SP 2 and all other updates. However, all destination drives would get to Windows loading screen and lock up. I had to do a repair install for each one. Big pain in the ass.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 19, 2004, 5:47 pm

Fyi, this became part of windows update today (19th).

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 19, 2004, 6:05 pm

Hi..

Is there any reason, and I mean any reason whatsoever to install this if you are happy with the way you've got windows working?

My own router's firewall causes me enough hassle
My computer has been virus/worm free for over 4 years
I have a pop-up blocker with Firefox
I detest auto-update, and check for windows updates regularly
I don't use Outlook
I don't, nor at this stage of its development do I want to, use wireless networking

Is this just going to install a bunch of shit I'm going to end up disabling anyway, and run things in the background I don't need?

Because that's all Microsoft's "user-friendly" explaination of the pack is telling me. I'm sure you guys can better explain it if there's something here I might actually find useful.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 23, 2004, 3:20 pm

The hotfix represented in this knowledge base article: http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... LN];884020 (previously mentioned by Aslanna) resolved my issue.

Niffoni, I personally think it should be installed. The buffer overrun issue alone is reason to. Also, Firefox is no more or less secure than IE. Popups are not really the issue, malicious code is. MS has addressed a lot of their weaknesses with this SP. As far as the firewall goes, I think EVERYONE should be running a personal firewall in addition to a hardware firewall, but that's just me. This largely has to do with the proliferation of mobile computers and LAN party situations. Sure your computer is protected from the Internet with your hardware firewall, but what happens when a friend comes over with an infected machine and infects yours? Having a firewall lets me know when devices are attempting to make connections to my PC so that I can make informed decisions about whether or not they should, and intelligent decisions about whether or not there's a problem on my network.

I personally think it should be installed as soon as possible.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 23, 2004, 3:27 pm

I have "notify me of updates" checked and even go to Windows updates but when it scans for updates it says none available.

I'm not having any issues but is this hotfix only for those with issues and not a universal update for everyone?

noel · Post by **noel** » August 23, 2004, 3:32 pm

The hotfix is for people who use VPN clients (or presumably other software) that make connections to addresses in the loopback address range that are not 127.0.0.1. This hotfix should probably only be installed if you're having a problem.

The hotfix is not available on the Windows update site. I had to open a support case with Microsoft to get it, and it came in a password protected zip file that they gave me the password for. Total time for the case open to close was ~2 days. It probably helped a lot that I already knew what the issue was by the time I contacted MS, and I knew what the fix would be.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 23, 2004, 5:26 pm

Niffoni wrote: I don't, nor at this stage of its development do I want to, use wireless networking

I just caught this, and was wondering...

What do you mean? Wireless networking is pretty damn well developed. Sure there will be enhancements/improvements down the line (as with all networking protocols), but you make it sound like it barely works or something.

WiFi, and WLANs are the future, and they will replace wired connections for most applications in the next five years or so.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 23, 2004, 5:38 pm

noel wrote:
Niffoni wrote: I don't, nor at this stage of its development do I want to, use wireless networking
I just caught this, and was wondering...

What do you mean? Wireless networking is pretty damn well developed. Sure there will be enhancements/improvements down the line (as with all networking protocols), but you make it sound like it barely works or something.

WiFi, and WLANs are the future, and they will replace wired connections for most applications in the next five years or so.

I strongly agree with your last paragraph, but every experience I've had with it and everything I've read is that it's fickle and not particularly fast unless you're willing to drop some major bucks, or put your computer close enough to your router or whatever that you may as well just pop in a cable.

Granted, the last time I used a wireless network of any kind was a good six months ago, but at that time I could barely go two rooms away, let alone a floor up, without running into signal problems.