--
dgarner

Simple answer is Yes!


--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

The information in this post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this post. The Author shall not be liable for any
direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use
of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this post..



"dgarner" <dgarner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7221B87F-F556-4A24-BCD7-8A0A32F30761@microsoft.com...

Why not?

Just make sure you are fully backed up.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

Today =?Utf-8?B?ZGdhcm5lcg==?= commented courteously on the
subject at hand

maybe you'll have to upgrade or replace some apps that won't
run.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford

Today John Barnett MVP commented courteously on the subject at
hand

badge away?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford

Unless you have a reason for not installing it then yes. SP2 fixes many
security flaws. Some programs are starting to require SP2 to run, although
at this point it's mostly Microsoft programs. There are valid reasons for
not installing it but they are rare. The most common are your computer is
too old and not compatible or you are running a program that is old and not
compatible. Before installing SP2 make sure you read the following:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...S;windowsxpsp2

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

"dgarner" <dgarner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7221B87F-F556-4A24-BCD7-8A0A32F30761@microsoft.com...

Would I care if they did? Simple answer NO!

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

The information in this post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this post. The Author shall not be liable for any
direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use
of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this post..



"All Things Mopar" <nunofyour@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97A696F064456ReplyID@216.196.97.131...

Today John Barnett MVP commented courteously on the subject at
hand

What I obviously meant, John, is that there are and number of
reasons /not/ to upgrade to SP2, but I have yet to ever see an
MVP even mention the possibility, much less discuss real-world
pros and cons.

Moreover, while I know it is a sweeping generality, the
prevailing advice to fixing anything wrong with SP1 is "upgrade
to SP2." That /may/ fix the problem but if it is embedded in the
user's system, they may be far, far worse off. And, while MVPs
are very careful to warn users comtemplating an upgrade to read
and heed M$s advice for upgraders, I don't think it is nearly
strong enough for the unintiated, particularly those with
marginal systems who believe everything they read and hear about
how vulnerable they are today and how SP2 will automagically
rescue them from a life of really poor cyber habits.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford

All Things Mopar wrote:
Did you read the whole thread? I believe I mentioned a couple of reasons
someone might not want to install it. I highly recommend that it be
installed as do most people who have an in depth knowledge of Windows. There
are special circumstances where it may be wiser not to install it.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Kerry Brown wrote:

And unfortunately those "special circumstances" may not be known until
after the fact of SP2 failing to install on a particular computer
system.

That's why the most important advise to anyone still considering to
install SP2 should be to warn them to back up everything.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

kurttrail wrote:
Your right. I did forget to mention a backup which is the single most
important thing to do before installing SP2. Thank you.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Today kurttrail commented courteously on the subject at hand

Yes, definitely. The problem is, no one knows if they are one
of the lucky few with "special circumstances", as little has
been added to M$'s list of known incompatibilities, and most
people figure out it's a good idea to do backups right /after/
they have a disaster.

One that took me almost 6 months to figure out was why SP2
crashed with a BSOD if I even tried to mount a CD-R or DVD-R
burned with UDF. Turns out it was an errant .sys file from EZ
CD Creator 5 (the one double-patched to work with XP in the
first place). Naturally, there was nothing on Roxio's web
site, which isn't entirely unreasonable as this was 2.5
versions old. Plus, some slick lawyer might try to tag Roxio
with a lawsuit for not disclosing they knew of a defect that
causes people to lose data.

This was my brand-new, clean install of XP so I didn't have to
do the nuke-and-reinstall shuffle, but it drove me batty.

But, back to the intent of this thread. Besides the obvious of
trying to do SP2 on a marginal system, and looking at the
known incompatibility list, it can be pretty damn hard for
even an expert IT person to predict just what combination of
older hardware, apps, and utilities might cause problems as
mild as annoying slowdowns or as major as system crashes or
even failure to start Windoze after the upgrade.

Probably the #1 culprit I'm aware of are nVidia graphics card
drivers that are either out-of-date or those dudes released a
buggy SP2 patch. Which is why my new PC has an ATI ...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford

All Things Mopar wrote:

About the only thing I disagree with you in this thread is lumping all
MVPs together in one broad stroke of the brush, though I've been guilty
of doing just that in the past myself. There are quite a few, like
Kerry, that do warn about what can go wrong, but I also think that most
people should move to SP2, if they can, as it is more secure than its
predecessors, though hardly perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

Today kurttrail commented courteously on the subject at hand

The reason I'm so hard on the MVPs is that they have -
collectively - a real tendency to overreact and an over-
tendency to spout the company line, both of which reduce their
credibility. I recall several times asking for help in the
last 6-8 months and getting 3 MS KB article references to
help, which would be really nice, except that the MVP failed
to read anything beyond the 1st sentence of my OP and quoted 3
entirely irrelevant links. Now, I know they're volunteers and
I know they're being watched by Big Brother, but Good Grief,
everything at M$ may not be as bad as I paint it, but it sure
as hell ain't as rosy as it seems from the MVPs.

Let me talk about one SP2 thingy that /really/ annoys me: it
allows me to set up any number of ports I want to block all
the time, any number of ports I want it to ask first before
allowing in or out traffic, and any number to just let
through. That's really great, until you get to that section.
Instead of the expected list of a thousand and one available
ports, there's just a blank box! Now, WTF good is that to me?!

And, since I've had SP2, I have yet to be asked even once if I
want to let so and so through. And, yes, I have the firewall
turned on, and all the parameters are set to install defaults,
but unlike Zone Alarm which can get annoying with its "is this
one OK?", at least people know it is on the job! If SP2 has
caught any bad guys trying to get in on my machine, then he's
awfully quiet about it. So, I'm not easily impressed with
claims that it is more secure than SP1, whether the claimant
is another customer or an MVP.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford

All Things Mopar wrote:
SP2 is much more than a firewall. It is a complete rewrite of many thousands
of lines of code to reduce security flaws and fix bugs.

The firewall while an important part of Windows security is much the same as
the firewall in SP1. It didn't magically appear with SP2. It has been around
since XP was in beta. SP2 turns it on by default. Previously it defaulted to
off. Zone Alarm is a completely different type of firewall. It monitors
inbound and outbound traffic. If you want those types of features then use a
3rd party app. Personally I don't see a need to monitor outbound traffic but
some people do. It's all about choices.

It doesn't matter what OS you use you will have to deal with updates,
service packs, bug fixes or whatever you want to call it. I use a couple of
different distros of Linux. They have to be regularly updated. OS/X has many
updates. In all cases the upgrades may break older hardware or software.

As for MVP's I'm very new to the program but I don't feel Microsoft
breathing down my neck. I enjoy the cachet, prestige, benefits, or whatever
you want to call it but if I ever thought it stopped me from stating my
opinions I would voluntarily opt out of the program instantly. I do admit
that I spend a bit more time on my posts since becoming an MVP. Many people
seem to take what MVP's say as gospel so I try to make sure that I am
technically correct. Politically I've always leaned towards incorrect.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Kerry Brown wrote:

<snip>

Really, Carey, er I mean Kelly? Oh, whatever the hell your name is!
;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

Kerry Brown wrote:
If this true then why are we still getting patches every month and
messing up our systems? For example this article tries to rectify
problems with this month's patch:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=918165

When will this work of patching our unpatched systems finnish? Any
ideas? We have received more patches than the actual operating system and yet the system is still not safe. What is going on?

John Winder wrote:

There is no code that is perfect. All you can expect is that it gets
better.

Right now, XP is really way overdue for a new service pack, but MS's
focus is on Anal Fistula. SP2 was way overdue when it was released, but
it is better that what came before it.

The biggest insecurity with Windows is that so many people use it, that
it gives malware writers the most bang out of their malware.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

John Winder wrote:
I guess you didn't read or didn't understand this part of my post:

"It doesn't matter what OS you use you will have to deal with updates,
service packs, bug fixes or whatever you want to call it. I use a couple of
different distros of Linux. They have to be regularly updated. OS/X has many
updates. In all cases the upgrades may break older hardware or software."

All software has bugs. Something as complicated as a gui based OS will
always be an ongoing process. SP2 fixed many things. It didn't fix
everything. It may not have even fixed most things. It is a very important
update that should be installed if possible. If you are looking for an OS
that doesn't need any updates then you will be looking for a long time.


--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Ooooh! LOL!!!!!!!!!

--
Curt

http://dundats.mvps.org/
http://dundats.proboards27.com/index.cgi
http://www.aumha.org/
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eqAHzxQYGHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...