Microsoft will release Service Pack 2 for Windows XP (both Home and Professional) in the first half of 2004. PCMag’s look at the beta version, released to testers in December, revealed a number of interesting security enhancements in Web browsing, e-mail, and networking.
Preview: Inside the Windows XP Service Pack 2 Beta
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
You can say the exact same thing about the Mac OS’s as far as “this stuff should have already been put out long ago” is concerned. Version 10.1 was what 10.0 SHOULD have been. Along with 10.2 and 10.3. When it comes to features there is never a should have because it is just like saying that old software SHOULD have been like new software. Give credit to microsoft for doing what they can do tighten down the OS and offer to add new features for free via a service pack. I’ve used SP2 and it is an excellent update even in beta form.
these are their innovations again, mate:)
Anyone read the bottom?
Other enhancements include the ability to restart interrupted downloads in Automatic Update, internal protection against buffer-overrun attacks
Where can I read about the buffer overflow patch? I doubt they found a way to protect the stack without breaking _any_ compatibility. This must be some half baked attempt?
that microsoft is improving windows in everyway since xp.
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net) – Posted on 2004-01-25 08:26:15
You can say the exact same thing about the Mac OS’s as far as “this stuff should have already been put out long ago” is concerned. Version 10.1 was what 10.0 SHOULD have been. Along with 10.2 and 10.3. When it comes to features there is never a should have because it is just like saying that old software SHOULD have been like new software. Give credit to microsoft for doing what they can do tighten down the OS and offer to add new features for free via a service pack. I’ve used SP2 and it is an excellent update even in beta form.
Well, I would be a little more harsh and state that 10.3 should have been 10.0. The peformance hit moving from 9.x to 10.x was not only noticable but in some cases, painful. People who expected improvements found that they were better off sticking with 9.x.
As for SP2, it looks like a great piece of software. If Linux keeps up the pressure, expect Microsoft releasing a good service pack.
As for the whiners and whinger who complain about “incompatibilities”, what do you want? the problems fixed or you do you want the problems simply “worked around” but still exist in “another form” simply to provide backwards compatibility? It isn’t Microsofts responsibility to provide compatibility to software developed by lazy software companies unwilling to release an update.
When there is an issue with software on MacOS, I don’t blame Apple, I blame the software company for not making sure that their software works with the version of MacOS I am running.
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net) – Posted on 2004-01-25 08:23:08
M$ needs to do regression test, not like other os which is often not compatible with its older self
Please, tell us, what operating system are you referring to? the only operating system I know of that didn’t provide backwards compatibility was BeOS when it moved from R3 to R4, and the executable format went from a.out to ELF.
RE: Bitterman (IP: —.bak.rr.com) – Posted on 2004-01-25 08:32:29
Anyone read the bottom?
Other enhancements include the ability to restart interrupted downloads in Automatic Update, internal protection against buffer-overrun attacks”
Where can I read about the buffer overflow patch? I doubt they found a way to protect the stack without breaking _any_ compatibility. This must be some half baked attempt?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/7/9/879a7b46-5ddb-4a82-b64…
The buffer overflow patch uses the NX technique in AMD64/Opteron CPU’s. Microsoft is trying to get Intel to adopt NX for their Pentium line of processors. The new processors being released soon *may* possibly include it.
The document outlines incompatibilities. From what Microsoft has done so far, they have given software companies PLENTY of time to test and issue patches to customers. If you software doesn’t work, don’t blame Microsoft, blame the software producer for not doing their job.
still playing fancy feet with their own firewall not allowing you block outgoing ports
still playing fancy feet with their own firewall not allowing you block outgoing ports
Maybe you should stop lying and give SP2 a test then come back and start making claims about Microsofts lack of security. Judge Microsoft once Sp2 is released, until then, zip it.
Yes Microsoft release shoddy unsecured software, yes it is buggy, yes their business practices are suspect, but hey with Windows 2000 they started a trend to more reliable software. XP I feel regressed that a bit but gave some other worthwhile features (System Restore), or attempted features (the ICF). Windows 2003 server is an excellent move and it looks like some of the features and ideas of it are being wrapped into the ideas of the XP SP2.
So all cynicism and negative thoughts about MS aside, this looks like a good pack. As long as it doesn’t bork the system like SP1 did to a few of my systems. (They must have changed some things as well as the JVM between SP1 and SP1a no matter what they said because SP1 screwed systems that SP1a didn’t.
I just hope they don’t break more things in SP2 because the changes on paper look good.
Yes I realise that System Restore debuted in WinME… but I can’t bring myself to say anything nice about that abherration…
@ChocolateCheeseCake
Actually Iain’s claim is correct, as (stated in the article) the firewall will not restrict outbound connections.
All you guys complaining and complaining on everything MS does!! Please guys stop, you are pathetic!
Everytime I see in interesting news and then would like to read good comments I always see some guys attacking MS for everything they do! I don’t see how you manage to be angry and like this all the time! Don’t you get tired! Be serious!
Its really annoying reading MS is doing this and MS is doing that, they will ruin the world, they plan a worldwar 3…
Bla bla bla!
I don’t use windows, I use gentoo, I don’t use vmware to use windows in linux! But then again I dont hate windows, I don’t attack MS, and bill gates..
I really respect Bill Gates for what he has done(not ms related), and I actually understand MS plans of taking over the world (by having windows on everyones computer). Its understandable, We linux guys want everyone to install linux and not windows! An opensource freeware world with no gates and no windows, bla bla bla…
Well for me it stops there, and for other guys they have to go into serious forums and say alot of bullshit. They create virus’s and all kind of software for one purpose (destroy windows).
Windows has done alot for the world and even for linux, every linux distribution uses something invented by windows.
Gnome, KDE … etc etc uses stuff invented and made first by windows and macos..
Linux is a better os thanx to windows and macos!
And if you dont like what I said, then stop using shortcuts like CTRL-V CTRL-N etc etc etc. Stop using windows for playing the DOOM3 and HL2 when they get released!
And please uninstall your windows xp that is stolen.
And if you actually bought it and are one of these guys I refer to, then you are pathetic! Like the rest of them!
And stop waiting for MONO, actually why don’t you do A virus hackin in MONO’s servers and destroy everything! Cause MONO is welcoming MS created stuff for linux! Dont you hate that?
Meeeeee I LOVE all projects doing like MONO does!
Love OpenOffice so that I can open MS office documents!
Love Mono for letting me use .Net!
Get over yourselfes! Grow up! Accept that windows is actually a very good OS, if not the best for its uses! Maybe not your uses but 99% of “the people that live in planet earth”‘s uses!
XP I feel regressed that a bit but gave some other worthwhile features (System Restore), or attempted features (the ICF). Windows 2003 server is an excellent move and it looks like some of the features and ideas of it are being wrapped into the ideas of the XP SP2.
That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server? If you want it, you need to do a funky install from your XP installation CD. There is an article online about how to turn your Windows 2003 Server into a workstation that describes how to do it.
“XP I feel regressed that a bit but gave some other worthwhile features (System Restore), or attempted features (the ICF). Windows 2003 server is an excellent move and it looks like some of the features and ideas of it are being wrapped into the ideas of the XP SP2.
That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server? If you want it, you need to do a funky install from your XP installation CD. There is an article online about how to turn your Windows 2003 Server into a workstation that describes how to do it.
Sunshine, you’re having a really bad day. Where in his post does he say that Windows 2003 has system restore? There is clearly a fullstop indicating that his comments regarding Windows XP had stopped, and he started the next sentence with Windows 2003 server clearly divorcing itself the first sentence.
Now, if one were to be pedantic about the situation, you could claim that he should have started a new paragraph indicating a clear change in the topic. If you re-read what he wrote he clearly said this:
Windows XP has some great features
Windows 2003 is a great improvement
SP2 may include features found in Windows 2003
How on earth did you jump from that to concluding that the original poster said: “That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server?”.
Maybe you should stop lying and give SP2 a test then come back and start making claims about Microsofts lack of security. Judge Microsoft once Sp2 is released, until then, zip it.
SO should we just disconnect from the internet until SP2 is released. The security issue with Windows has been an ongoing thing, not something that just popped up 6 months ago and so Microsoft is busting their butts to release an update. I don’t think you can judge Microsoft on what_will_be_released. Myself I don’t use software or os’s or anything for that matter on what is to come, I use it for what it is now.
“Maybe you should stop lying and give SP2 a test then come back and start making claims about Microsofts lack of security. Judge Microsoft once Sp2 is released, until then, zip it.”
SO should we just disconnect from the internet until SP2 is released. The security issue with Windows has been an ongoing thing, not something that just popped up 6 months ago and so Microsoft is busting their butts to release an update. I don’t think you can judge Microsoft on what_will_be_released. Myself I don’t use software or os’s or anything for that matter on what is to come, I use it for what it is now.
And if you consider the product to be defective, why do you continue to use it? I’ve made my choice, I voted with my wallet and I now own an Apple. Why don’t you vote with your wallet and move to either a different operating system or platform?
if the EULA of SP2 still grants Microsoft access to your computer and lets them install whatever they want. They changed it for Windows 2000 because it messed of a lot of buisnesses and organizations and conflicted with their policies. The EULA for XP pretty much kept Windows XP from stepping foot in a corporate enviroment. So hase it changed?
Currently I use Linux, although I do have a copy of XP which I bought. Once SP2 is released I will probably give it another spin. Not trying to argue about this. Sorry if the original post was a little offensive.
Currently I use Linux, although I do have a copy of XP which I bought. Once SP2 is released I will probably give it another spin. Not trying to argue about this. Sorry if the original post was a little offensive.
No worries. Many people sometimes assume that I run Windows, which I assumed you were assuming, which in this case, I am in the wrong.
The only thing I have with some people here (minus you and a couple of others), is that they whine about Windows and yet they do nothing about it. They simply continue using it. They’re basically saying, “It hurts when I shoot myself in the foot, but I’ll continue doing it anyway”.
“That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server?”
I do actually. Running W2K Pro, Server, WXP Pro and W2k3 Server here so I’m in a position to compare features, speed, reliability basically.
There are some nice lockdowns in w2k3. It was a blast to set it up the first time and find you can’t even use IE in it’s default install. The message appears to be finally getting through it would appear, as witnessed with the SP2 work or rather what is being publicly released about it.
“The EULA for XP pretty much kept Windows XP from stepping foot in a corporate enviroment. ”
This is what I would like to know. Can you back up this claim, or did this idea just bubble up to the top of your head and escape through your fingers to your keyboard?
“the only operating system I know of that didn’t provide backwards compatibility was BeOS when it moved from R3 to R4, and the executable format went from a.out to ELF.”
The executable format on BeOS R3/Intel was PE(COFF).
http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/developers/switch/announ…
(SIDETRACK: Since Be was happy with Metrowerk’s PEF (sic!) for PowerPC, BeOS/PPC never made the switch to ELF, but OpenBeOS/PPC will be using ELF, AFAIK.)
The EULA for XP pretty much kept Windows XP from stepping foot in a corporate enviroment. So hase it changed?
COMEDY GOLD. Slashdot is this way -> slashdot.org
Just sounds like more features to slow down your computer even more — do people notice that WindowXP runs sluggish on a 1Ghz system (although slow by todays standard a 1Ghz system is not something to laugh at) even with all the extra animations turned off.
At work they recently migrated our systems from M$ Windows2k to WindowsXP, and My 1.8Ghz 512MB Ram ran really fast on Win2k. Now on WindowsXP it’s sluggish. It just doesn’t respond quickly anymore.
In the article regarding the firewall they state:
“…You still won’t get the protection against outbound traffic that programs like ZoneAlarm provide…”
What’s the point of doing things half fast. If you’re going to implement a firewall do it right! — NO that wouldn’t be the Microsoft way — Let’s do it half fast — then 6 months later improve upon it to make yourself look good infront of the media!
I think I will stick to Linux with the IpTables firewall!
You guys are defending a company that has a horrible security record and when they finally come out with a patch to fix it or admit there is a problem you guys act like its the most wonderful thing ever when it SHOULD have done a long time before now. Yeah SP2 is nice but half the features SHOULD have been released for the benefit of the consumer a long time before now.
I think what the poster might have been talking about was the fact that some people were unsure if the EULA for XPSP1 and W2kSP3 were violations of things like HIPAA (Health Care Privacy Protection).
“At work they recently migrated our systems from M$ Windows2k to WindowsXP,….”
I am so tired of “M$”. First anyone who uses this acronym to describe Microsoft is never going to be taken serously by anyone with half a brain or more.
Second by using this acronym you are showing not only that you have a dislike of Microsoft, but also of money. You do realize that money is merely a storage medium for goods that you can have not aquired yet. In other words, money represents food, heat, housing even the computer you are using to tell the world about your disdain for Microsoft and money.
“At work they recently migrated our systems from M$ Windows2k to WindowsXP, and My 1.8Ghz 512MB Ram ran really fast on Win2k. Now on WindowsXP it’s sluggish. It just doesn’t respond quickly anymore.”
I have not had the same experience. I have a P3 800 and 640 MB of RAM. I’ve found that everything generally runs as fast – or faster – using Windows XP. XP boots faster, apps load just as quickly, multimedia (i.e. videos, music) play just as well and games run smoothly.
That being said, I have no quibbles with Win2k either but I have not had any similar problems with XP. I have all the ‘eye candy’ turned on. Turning off Hibernation mode and System restore, however, seem to speed up the computer a bit so I always turn it off.
“still playing fancy feet with their own firewall not allowing you block outgoing ports”
As soon as Microsoft does that all the personal firewall vendors will sue Microsoft complaining about unfair business practices. The vicious cycle will start all over again. Businesses and even governments in the EU’s case always go after the larger companies with litigation becasue they know a cmpany like Microsoft can afford it. So make up anything you want about Microsoft convince 12 people and you can get a payout too!
“still playing fancy feet with their own firewall not allowing you block outgoing ports”
You do know about implementing a local security policy to block outgoing ports, don’t you? Oh wait, guess not.
Quote from EULA regarding DRM, Automatic Updates, and Internet Connections, (emphasis added by bold is mine, and does not appear in the EULA):
“2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS
AND LIMITATIONS.
* Automatic Internet-Based Services. The Software features
described below are enabled by default to connect via the
Internet to Microsoft computer systems automatically,
without separate notice to you. You consent to the
operation of these features, unless you choose to switch
them off or not use them. Microsoft does not obtain
personally identifiable information through any of these
features. For more details about these features, what
information is collected, and how it is used visit
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=20536.
(i) Windows Update Features. Under the Software’s default
configuration, if you connect a device to your Server and
the correct device driver is not available on your Server,
then Windows Update features on your Server (including
Device Manager and the Plug & Play CDM Module)
automatically attempt to check Microsoft computer systems
via the Internet for the correct device driver. Having this
happen automatically makes Plug-and-Play installation of
new hardware a better experience for customers. You may
switch off Windows Update’s automatic driver checking
feature.
(ii) Web Content Features. Under the Software’s default
configuration, if you are connected to the Internet,
several features of the Software are enabled by default
to retrieve content from Microsoft computer systems and
display it to you. When you activate such a feature, it
uses standard Internet protocols, which transmit the type
of operating system, browser and language code of your
Server to the Microsoft computer system so that the
content can be viewed properly from your Server. These
features only operate when you activate them, and you
may choose to switch them off or not use them. Examples
of these features include Windows Catalog, Search
Assistant, and the Headlines and Search features of Help
and Support Center.
(iii) Digital Certificates. Use of certificates based on
the X.509 standard is an important security feature of the
Software. Certain functions of the X.509 implementation
(for example, certificate revocation checking and
certificate path building) connect via the Internet to
computer systems belonging to Microsoft and other digital
certificate authorities to check the validity of digital
certificates that you receive from third parties during
certain Internet-based operations (for example,
communications secured with SSL or IPsec, mail secured
with S/MIME, and smartcard authentication). In accordance
with the X.509 standard, the Software automatically
retrieves user certificates and certificate revocation
lists when you attempt to access certificate protected
content. Additionally, the Software’s Auto Root Update
feature will occasionally update the list of trusted
certificate authorities. Auto Root Update is an optional
feature; you can uninstall it if you do not desire it to
function. The other security operations based on the X.509
standard can be prevented from operating by blocking Server
Internet access.
(iv) Windows Media Digital Rights Management. Content
providers are using the digital rights management
technology for Windows Media contained in this Software
(“WM-DRM”) to protect the integrity of their content
(“Secure Content”) so that their intellectual
property, including copyright, in such content is not
misappropriated. Portions of this Software and third party
applications such as media players use WM-DRM to play
Secure Content (“WM-DRM Software”). If the WM-DRM
Software’s security has been compromised, owners of
Secure Content (“Secure Content Owners”) may request that
Microsoft revoke the WM-DRM Software’s right to copy,
display and/or play Secure Content. Revocation does not
alter the WM-DRM Software’s ability to play unprotected
content. A list of revoked WM-DRM Software is sent to
your computer whenever you download a license for Secure
Content from the Internet. Microsoft may, in conjunction
with such license, also download revocation lists onto
your computer on behalf of Secure Content Owners. Secure
Content Owners may also require you to upgrade some of
the WM-DRM components in this Software (“WM-DRM Upgrades”)
before accessing their content. When you attempt to play
such content, WM-DRM Software built by Microsoft will
notify you that a WM-DRM Upgrade is required and then ask
for your consent before the WM-DRM Upgrade is downloaded.
WM-DRM Software built by third parties may do the same.
If you decline the upgrade, you will not be able to access
content that requires the WM-DRM Upgrade; however, you
will still be able to access unprotected content and
Secure Content that does not require the upgrade. WM-DRM
features that access the Internet, such as acquiring new
licenses and/or performing a required WM-DRM Upgrade, can
be switched off. When these features are switched off, you
will still be able to play Secure Content if you have a
valid license for such content already stored on your
computer.
(v) Windows Media Player. Some features of Windows Media
Player automatically contact Microsoft computer systems if
you use Windows Media Player or specific features of it:
features that (A) check for new codecs if your Server does
not have the correct ones for content you attempt to play
(this feature may be switched off), and (B) check for new
versions of Windows Media Player (this feature will operate
only when you are using Windows Media Player).
* Remote Desktop/Remote Assistance/NetMeeting. The Software
contains Remote Desktop, Remote Assistance, and NetMeeting
technologies that enable the Software or applications
installed on the Workstation Computer (sometimes referred
to as a host device) to be accessed remotely from other
Devices. You may use the Software’s Remote Desktop feature
(or other software which provides similar functionality for
a similar purpose) to permit any Device to use, access,
display or run the Software without acquiring a license for
the Software on that Device, provided only one user uses,
accesses, displays, or runs the Software at any one time.
When you are using Remote Assistance or NetMeeting (or
other software which provides similar functionality for a
similar purpose) you may share your session with other
users without any limit on the number of Device connections
and without acquiring additional licenses for the Software.
For Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications, you should
consult the license agreement accompanying the applicable
software or contact the applicable licensor to determine
whether use of the software with Remote Desktop, Remote
Assistance, or NetMeeting is permitted without an
additional license. As used above, a session means the
experience delivered by the Software similar to when a user
is using the input, output and display peripherals attached
to the Workstation Computer.”
@Bill Sykes
“…Second by using this acronym you are showing not only that you have a dislike of Microsoft, but also of money. You do realize that money is merely a storage medium for goods that you can have not aquired yet. In other words, money represents food, heat, housing even the computer you are using to tell the world about your disdain for Microsoft and money….”
‘SIGH’ the ‘M$’ thing does _not_ apply to what ever jibberish you just said. It applies more to the ‘fact’ that Microsoft is more concerned about making money (hence the $ sign)then making reliable, stable, secure and fast software. M$ unfortunately during the last decade, and a bit has been introducing into their software some of the poorest programming practices. Yes, for awhile it seemed that everyone was doing it. It wasn’t until *somewhat recently that you began seeing people trying to make their software cleaner, more reliable, and secure — rather than the attitude that computers are so fast anyways it doesn’t matter if our code isn’t fast.
For instance: WindowXP when compared to Windows2k runs slowly with minimal enhancements made to the OS — or at least not enough to justify the performance loss.
RealPlayer use to be a kick ass program — now it runs slow as shyte.
EasyCD Creator 4 use to be fast — look at version 6. It gives you the abilitly to burn DVDs, and some tools for cleaning the sound on your audio cds but outside of that not much more than 4 offered, but their is this huge bloat to your system when you use version 6.
WinAmp 2 – small, sleak, and fast. What happened to version 3? — it sucked. Honestly, I haven’t tried version 5, but I’ve heard some good things about it. So maybe they can be considered a company that has started to clean up their code.
Now look at open source:
Mozilla got totally rewritten for version 1, because the developers decided that the previous code was written poorly. Since version 1 their has been numerous performance increases. In addition, the individual components of Mozilla are being rewritten — again (ie: Firebird, Thunderbird).
Look at KDE. KDE 3 introduced numerous features, and nicer gui, and yes it ran a bit slowly. Then 3.1 came around — new features were introduced, but it ran a bit faster. KDE 3.1.4 saw some additional performance increases, and from what i’ve heard 3.2b is really FAST.
Again with OpenOffice.org: Version 1.0 was slow. version 1.1 offered some new features, but agian it ran a bit faster.
You don’t see this attitude from M$. They don’t see the need that things need to be done better than what they have done in the past. Otherwise Outlook would have been written again because the product sucks **beep**. All they care about is making money (again hence the $ sign), and recently giving the perception to the media they are trying to do things right — again back to the $ sign.
Ya, running a business is about making money — no argument here. The 80s saw lots of software being developed for the purpose of making $, but all the software was written well — With performance in the back of everyones mind. Computers have been getting exponentially faster during the last decade, and a half, and the attitude about care when programming has been thrown out for many of the software producers.
Thankfully, this ‘care’ we saw during the 80s is starting to make a come back with some software projects. Obviously writting a program from scratch a second time takes money. M$ doesn’t want to admit they did something wrong, and invest the time, and $ to fix it — All they care about is making more $. Hence I use the term M$
Microsoft’s agenda is not congruent with security. Microsoft’s agenda is congruent with forcing people to upgrade and charging as much as they possibly can for it.
Also congruent with their business practices is forcing people to install crap they would not otherwise install by embedding it in the system. The embedding also happens to be the cause of much of their security problems. In short they are trying to fix flaws they caused by trying to crush their competition at all costs, mainly security.
This isn’t a troll… I was just wondering if anyone who had tried the beta can give me answers
1) Can I fully remove MSN Messenger now, and not have it come back?
2) Is the attachment control finer grained than turning everything off, that SP1 did? Kinda defeated the point not to be able to view non-executables either.
3) Is the IE bug where it will only save images as BMP after a while, fixed?
4) Is the Explorer problem where it crashes with large numbers of images in a directory, in thumbnail view fixed? <- Big nightmare, since the file selector uses the same component, making access aside from through the CLI impossible.
5) Is the problem with IE losing the entire history sometimes, fixed? Related, the problem where IE never remembers certain sites?
If anyone can help answer these, many thanks
You complain about the speed of Windows XP then you go on to use third party apps as examples. I have no idea what Winamp 3 has to do with Windows XP, as far as I know it ran like dog on everything.
“Otherwise Outlook would have been written again because the product sucks **beep**.”
Have you used Outlook 2003? You may be speaking of Outlook Express. Do you even know the difference?
“The 80s saw lots of software being developed for the purpose of making $, but all the software was written well — With performance in the back of everyones mind.”
Just as I thought you have no idea what you are talking about. Generally speaking there was just as much crappy, if not more, software back in the 80’s as there is now.
Could your problem be that Microsoft is a US company?
“Microsoft’s agenda is not congruent with security. Microsoft’s agenda is congruent with forcing people to upgrade and charging as much as they possibly can for it.”
Of course they care about security. They just don’t want to do data-rape love triangles with uninvited third parties.
since it can block both inbound and outbound. Just set up a deny all rule and then add port exemptions.
“…You complain about the speed of Windows XP then you go on to use third party apps as examples. I have no idea what Winamp 3 has to do with Windows XP, as far as I know it ran like dog on everything…”
I used this as one of my examples that M$ wasn’t the only company that produced poor code. Hence I mentioned RealPlayer, EasyCD Creator, and WinAmp. Difference being WinAmp realized that version 3 sucked bag, and decided to rewrite the application (hence version 5). Where M$ would never invest the time nor $ to do such a thing or bother making existing application more efficient.
“…Have you used Outlook 2003? You may be speaking of Outlook Express. Do you even know the difference…?”
Personally, I have not used ‘LookOut’ 2003, but I have used ‘LookOut’ XP/2000 and 97 — I hated them all.
LookOut XP/2000/97: Email manager that also provides shared calendar, notes, etc… Comes bundled as part of M$ Office. Stores local mail, and attachments in 1 (bloated would be an understatement) *.PST file per account. Supports Exchanage mailboxes, POP mail, and has ‘half-fast’ IMAP support. If you would like I can give you a detailed reasoning why I beLIEve IMAP on Outlook was implimented half fast. The same reasons I gave to management in my company, and converted 60+ users to Mozilla, and implemented a 3rd party on-line calendar sharing service.
LookOut Express 6/5/4: Email manager that does _not_ provide calendar or notes. Comes bundled “freely” as part of the M$ Operating System. Stores local mail in individual *.mbx files per folder (ie: Inbox, Sent Items, Trash, etc..). Supports POP mail, and IMAP mail. Sadly supports IMAP better than Outlook. (I will say that I have never seen IMAP perform faster in any other mail client, and this includes Mozilla Mial, Thunderbird, Eudora Mail). My only issue with LookOut Express using IMAP is how it handles ‘purging’ of messages.
“…Just as I thought you have no idea what you are talking about. Generally speaking there was just as much crappy, if not more, software back in the 80’s as there is now…”
True there was a lot of crappy software (at least for it’s time) back in the 80s — Just look at ‘Multi Mate!’ It wasn’t the greatest program, but you can’t argue that the code wasn’t clean — they had to keep it clean. Systems were slow, and memory was little. If the programmers in general ( not just the manufacturers of Multi Mate) didn’t keep the code clean their programs wouldn’t run on the systems of the time. Now look at ‘most’ modern VB programs. How many times is the ‘large integer’ used just for the sake of easier programming. (Simply because no one cares about how much memory they use).
Your last comment “…Could your problem be that Microsoft is a US company? ” I’m not really sure I understand this — so no comment! I’m Canadian eh!
Stop shooting your mouth off about other peoples technical abilities/understanding! I worked at Canada’s 5th largest ISP providing technical support to 12000+ dialup/xDSL users Where I supported every major OS at the time (Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/3.1, and MacOS 7.5/8 and 9 — Note: Windows XP, and MacOS X wasn’t released at the time). At a diff. company I did desktop support for 23 months for 60+ users. I now do sys. admin. for the same company supporting a hybrid of Windows, and Linux servers (7 Windows Servers, and 5 Linux Servers). We are mainly a Unix shop (solaris 8), but I never touch those systems. I hope to in the near future — I’m still learning!
“Where can I read about the buffer overflow patch? I doubt they found a way to protect the stack without breaking _any_ compatibility. This must be some half baked attempt?”
They recompiled a ton of their core libraries using the latest version of Visual C++ .NET–removing a bunch of buffer overflows.
“That is “how on earth did” I “jump to concluding” – Microsoft says so!”
Gee whiz, so you have to enable the System Restore service in 2003 instead of it being on by default. Goodness gracious, snakes alive.
Anyone who still uses the word “M$” in this day and age really looks idiotic and hilarious. I do hope you realize that. Shouldn’t you be at Slashdot?
I’m waiting to see what M$ does with SP2. M$ usually provides good fixes IMO, but not always to my satisfaction. The M$ SP2 is more than just fixes, of course. I, personally don’t use M$ Windows as much anymore (only 1 XP machine in dual boot), but improved security is good for everyone. We’ll have to wait until M$ comes out with SP2 before I can make any real decisions.
Also, it’s funny when people think they’re better than others. I think my using M$ is both idiotic and hilarious. If you don’t, you probably ARE better than me.
You said:
“That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server?”
Accept it, you’re in the wrong. Handle it and move on.
Well, I’m impressed they took so long to get “pop up blocking” in IE.
I’ll stay with mozilla anyway… firebird’s got really nice ad and pop-up blocking features.
‘SIGH’ the ‘M$’ thing does _not_ apply to what ever jibberish you just said. It applies more to the ‘fact’ that Microsoft is more concerned about making money (hence the $ sign)then making reliable, stable, secure and fast software.
Welcome to the world of business.
I’ve seen no reason to believe Microsoft have any more or less of a focus on making money over other things than any other software company out there.
M$ unfortunately during the last decade, and a bit has been introducing into their software some of the poorest programming practices.
Evidence ? Examples ?
Yes, for awhile it seemed that everyone was doing it. It wasn’t until *somewhat recently that you began seeing people trying to make their software cleaner, more reliable, and secure — rather than the attitude that computers are so fast anyways it doesn’t matter if our code isn’t fast.
Computers *are* so fast today it doesn’t matter if the code isn’t. I’d much rather have relatively slow code written in something like Java than lightning fast code written in C. The latter is more likely to be buggier, harder to maintain and harder to port.
For instance: WindowXP when compared to Windows2k runs slowly with minimal enhancements made to the OS — or at least not enough to justify the performance loss.
Bollocks. XP is faster than 2000. Google for “Windows 2000 vs Windows XP benchmarks” if you want some actual numbers.
I’ve installed XP on a dual *Pentium* 200 with 256Mb RAM. It was definitely slow, but usable for basic web browsing, email, word processing, etc. That’s an 8 year old machine. Any P2 class machine or up with enough RAM (256MB+) will run XP quite usably.
RealPlayer use to be a kick ass program — now it runs slow as shyte.
Realplayer has never been a “kick ass program”. It has gone from bad, to worse, to simply obnoxious.
Realplayer has never been anything more than a necessary evil since day 1.
EasyCD Creator 4 use to be fast — look at version 6. It gives you the abilitly to burn DVDs, and some tools for cleaning the sound on your audio cds but outside of that not much more than 4 offered, but their is this huge bloat to your system when you use version 6.
WinAmp 2 – small, sleak, and fast. What happened to version 3? — it sucked. Honestly, I haven’t tried version 5, but I’ve heard some good things about it. So maybe they can be considered a company that has started to clean up their code.
This is because these programs basically ran out of things to do, but the developers still needed something to justify their existence. There’s only so much functionality you really need out of a CD writing or MP3 player program. Personally I haven’t used either for years, but I’m not surprised they’ve gone to the dogs.
Mozilla got totally rewritten for version 1, because the developers decided that the previous code was written poorly. Since version 1 their has been numerous performance increases. In addition, the individual components of Mozilla are being rewritten — again (ie: Firebird, Thunderbird).
This is because the people doing this don’t have to work to a schedule. There is no real pressure on them to get on with it.
Contrast this to for-profit developers, who *have* to get the code out the door so they can get paid. Rewriting from scratch is a *massive* undertaking that effectively puts the product out of the market for *years*. It is not something that is undertaken lightly in the commercial world. Netscape’s decision to try and rewrite Navigator from scratch is one of the biggest mistakes they ever made – it basically cost them the company. The same mistake was made *again* by the Mozilla team, and it cost them the browser market.
Look at KDE. KDE 3 introduced numerous features, and nicer gui, and yes it ran a bit slowly. Then 3.1 came around — new features were introduced, but it ran a bit faster. KDE 3.1.4 saw some additional performance increases, and from what i’ve heard 3.2b is really FAST.
Sounds like NT4 -> 2000 -> XP. Or OS X 10.0 -> .1 -> .2 -> .3 (arguably OS X 10.0 was so atrociously slow they simply couldn’t go anywhere but up).
You don’t see this attitude from M$. They don’t see the need that things need to be done better than what they have done in the past.
You’re obviously watching a different company to me. Whilst I would never try to argue their reasons are even the slightest bit altruistic, they *do* have a consisten record of improving their products over time.
Otherwise Outlook would have been written again because the product sucks **beep**.
There is no reason whatsoever to rewrite Outlook.
All they care about is making money (again hence the $ sign), and recently giving the perception to the media they are trying to do things right — again back to the $ sign.
Writing “M$” is about as mature writing “Linsux” or “Deadrat”. You sound like a ten year old.
Ya, running a business is about making money — no argument here. The 80s saw lots of software being developed for the purpose of making $, but all the software was written well — With performance in the back of everyones mind.
When the fastest machine is a 16 Mhz 386, it makes sense to concentrate a lot on performance.
When a blisteringly fast PC costs <$500 US, it makes vastly more sense to concentrate a lot on features, UI, reliability, portability and maintainability.
Computers have been getting exponentially faster during the last decade, and a half, and the attitude about care when programming has been thrown out for many of the software producers.
It makes no sense whatsoever to expend months of effort on a 10% performance improvement.
Obviously writting a program from scratch a second time takes money.
Not to mention *time*.
M$ doesn’t want to admit they did something wrong, and invest the time, and $ to fix it — All they care about is making more $.
I can’t think of any Microsoft software that is bad enough to warrant a rewrite.
Hence I use the term M$
Grow up. It isn’t funny and it isn’t clever.
“Grow up. It isn’t funny and it isn’t clever.”
I strongly agree. No matter what you think about any company or individual, that kind of “tee hee, aren’t I clever” behaviour just weakens your cause.
This has turned into another ‘windows is crap’ thread.
Personally, I think windows rocks and use it on a daily basis.
I remember the pains of win9x and the frequent crashes – those, for the most part, seem to be things of the past.
As far as having to run default microsoft software, such as outlook and iexplore – heck, you don’t have to. I run mozilla.
If you don’t like microsoft or it’s software, then don’t buy it – nobody is holding a gun to your head.
I run Linux as a web/mail server and as a second desktop at home (slackware 9.1) – it continually amazes, frustrates and entertains me.
At work I have access to MacOS 9.1 and would love to try out MacOSx
Bottom line – what’s the point in bashing microsoft ?
I’ve been beta testing SP2 here at work for about a week and a half. The ICF pops up a message whenever an app/service attempts to connect to the internet asking for the user’s permission. It *does* permit the user to limit outgoing connections unlike that in the Pre-SP2 days.
Windows XP has some great features
Windows 2003 is a great improvement
SP2 may include features found in Windows 2003
How on earth did you jump from that to concluding that the original poster said: “That is ironic. Did you know that System Restore is not in Windows 2003 Server?”.
both the workstation and server versions of Whistler were essentially feature complete and used the same code base. The time between the release of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 was primarily spent making it as robust as possible. Thus, it’s not at all surprising that many of the new Windows Server 2003 features and APIs are also available in Windows XP. Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
That is “how on earth did” I “jump to concluding” – Microsoft says so!
truth hurts so bad it needs to be modded down?!?!?!?
I would suppose that it was the “Hey troll guy” comment that got you modded down.
I would suppose that it was the “Hey troll guy” comment that got you modded down.
True, but that is what he was doing 🙂
He clearly chose to ignore the response from the poster I was responding to (who did agree with me), the facts that I dragged in from the Microsoft’s own description of the product, and made personal attacks rather that discuss the issue.
People should use “long” integers in VB6 programs, an “integer” in VB6 is still only 16bits long for compatibility reasons. Its actually more efficient to use 32bit intergers on a 32bit system than it is to use 16bit integers.
So all cynicism and negative thoughts about MS aside, this looks like a good pack. As long as it doesn’t bork the system like SP1 did to a few of my systems. (They must have changed some things as well as the JVM between SP1 and SP1a no matter what they said because SP1 screwed systems that SP1a didn’t.
I just hope they don’t break more things in SP2 because the changes on paper look good.