I put it in tonight and checking out all the new features. IE pop-up blocker works well too, caught ad's that google toolbar used to miss. Seems to be too strong though, for instance... Went to download ATI's latest drivers but the download was embedded in a pop-up. Sure there is the temporary allowance of them and you can add it into your trusted site list (they could of made it a little easier, something like a Super Favorite that automatically adds the site into trusted zone) but google wasn't so strict.

Oh, and you think they'd add Norton Anti-Virus to the list of trusted software that works with the embedded anti-virus checker. Morons.

Firewall is very much improved. I might actually keep using it from now on. It's still simple but at the same time versitile. The options it provides should calm some compatibility cries.

As for the non-detection of Norton. Here's the deal. Rather than MS put in the tiny bit of extra effort to have SP2 look for anti-virus programs. You have to recode YOUR programs to tell SP2 that it's installed. Symantec is releasing a patch tomorrow (aug 10th) for SP2 compatability. And it's not just Norton, a whole bunch of vendors were caught like that. Mcafee, was NOT one of them. But MS and Network Associates are in bed together anyway.

I won't be turning the firewall on, I'll just let my router do it, I don't need the extra headache of configuring program access.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

Windows still only looks for version 4

--------------------

However, the downloadable SP2 is available from MS's beta site. It IS the full release, and not RC2.

Acid, read my previous post, Grisoft probably sneaked a product update in there that allowed SP2 to see it. SP2 does NOT natively look for anti-virus programs.

HS, I went to v5 a while ago. It actually changes the whole update subsystem in windows. It goes to v5 by default. You CAN'T go back to v4. Check your windows update controls in the system properties. ..trust me, it's different.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

Download: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&DisplayLang=en
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b076b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

RC2 didn't see it, RTM saw it and told my my definitions were old. RTM recognized it.

Edit - It probably has something to do with NAV sucking ass.

Has anyone noticed the Windows loading screen has changed? I'm running Professional and the Professional is totally missing from that screen. Worst part is, I have no clue if this is normal or not so now I'm not sure if I want to install this patch onto my client's PCs if it isn't official.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
It couldn't clean the virus because XP won't let it access the 'System Restore' partition

---

That's why you turn off System Restore and boot into Safe Mode when scanning for viruses.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

GFK, if you check the system properties, it'll say it's WinXP Pro SP2.

Kyle, I've seen AVG cause major problems, and I've seen it work fine. To inconsistent for my tastes, and I've seen it miss viruses. I'll trust Norton like I trust my own brother. . . till the day it betrays me.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

The only thing that bothers me is that by default it turns the firewall on. In principle I don't have a problem with this. But SP2 completely ignores ZoneAlarm, I haven't seen problems yet, but it's only a matter of time.

[ 08-11-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

I don't know,,, kind of like how zone alarm can be configured for ports and network paths but have too admit, i haven't looked into the microsloth firewall yet.

I agree with Microsoft, people are whores who infect business. They need to be inoculated, even if you have to tie them up like cattle. I am amazed that people will open email that says "Update your Passwords" and just go ahead and do it.

Cy: I say disable ZA for now and just try out MS' firewall, see how you like it. I can safely say it's fully customizeable without all that extra bullshit that's bundled in firewalls. You can set specific ports to unblock and you can have Windows determine what ports a program uses by adding the program in the Unblock list.

I'll tell you this. MS' original firewall sucked huge dick. It wasn't as customizeable as now and it even disabled certain MS services (File and print sharing would not work with the firewall active, or remote desktop). MS was smart enough to setup this firewall so that if you have file sharing active or remote desktop active, it automatically changes the settings on the firewall to allow these services to work properly.

I ain't kidding when I say this, I'm really impressed with the firewall and pop-up blocker included in SP2. I think MS took all the right steps, regardless of the end users/developers that are bitching. What, we should make our lives more secure because some developer is bitching and moaning that he has to update his code? If they really feel that way, they should go into another field.

They'd never be able to get away with something like that I don't think. Symantec will rip them a new asshole, along with their close partner McAfee (unless McAfee happens to develop it for them).

However, there are two "anti-virus" related function in SP2. 1: The Security Center will check to make sure that the anti-virus software you have installed is functional and up-to-date. 2: If a virus is detected on your computer (how it's detected is determined by MS and Windows Update), MS will sent an Update request to your computer that points you to a removal tool for the virus/worm that infected your computer.

quote:

---

Well I think if Microsoft were to create an anti-virus program for Windows and package it for free, they'd be hearing the Anti-Trust woes again.

---

While I will admit there are Linux viruses out there, Microsoft really should take a look at the way Linux/Unix are setup as far as permissions go. The main components of Windows are too easily infected through scripts, dlls, executables, pifs, activeX, macros etc all because they need to keep things simple in terms of end user configurability.

(What did I mispeel snag?)

--------------------

The Windows isn't the security equivlant of swiss cheese because it's crap, it's because it's so prevelant, people are constantly looking for bugs. Reverse Windows and Linux roles, you get people looking for Linux bugs and exploits, and writing viruses for Linux.

Stability problems in MS software (platform compatibility aside) mostly stem from the fact that TOO much stuff is added in. WinXP is basically Windows 2000 Second Edition (literally, XP is NT5.1). XP has WAY more bells and whistles, it's stable, but 2k was practically bullet proof by comparison. Less bells and whistles.

A perfect case in point of my bells and whistles theory is how TERRIBLE WindowsME was vs Windows 98 Second Edition. Basically WinME was Win98 Third Edition, but had so many bells and whistles that it would break just by breathing on your computer.

[edit]

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for SP2 to show up on Windows Update. I know that the switch from v4 to v5 already happened earlier today, but where is SP2. God damnit.

[ 08-12-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
Other than the fact that it blew. My neighbor installed it and had to format weekly.

---

Even with Microsoft (Who was doing a large bit of the coding anyway, for Apple at the time, hence the lawsuit) setting the GUI benchmark, it took Apple how long to come out with OSX? Hell, IBM's OS/2 was also coded by Microsoft. Why do you think it looks so Windows 3.0ish?

Gates is one savvy mutha. Nothing but respect for the man capable if becoming the richest human on the planet (And without killing anybody...that anybody knows of).

Also the biggest philanthopist ever. Shit, The Gates Foundation gives 100s of millions of dollars to all kinds of things that truly need to have money spent on them.

Windows still good. I run Linux, Like Linux. Not in the same league as Windows though. Just isn't. People want to hate Windows just because it's Windows.

Millions of lines of code in XP. Millions of lines of code.

Millions. Lot of fucking code. SO what the humans, made a few mistakes. Other humans are exploiting them. Shit happens. Longhorn will be even better. Then the one after that even better.

(Yeah snag, just arguing to argue at this point ) My point is, Microsoft didn't really rip off the GUI concept. They were the ones developing it for Apple. Apple came up with the idea first, and asked M$ to help them implement it. Apple = Hardware company, M$ = Software company. Lines are a little blurry today but not so much at first. They improved on Apples idea and made it what it is. Can't really patent the concept of a GUI. It's like trying to patent a number.

(Yes M$ tried that I know )

I still say that

quote:

---

M$ only makes well what they have previously ripped off or bought.

---

is just not true.

[ 08-13-2004: Message edited by: Devastator ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Gates is one savvy mutha. Nothing but respect for the man capable if becoming the richest human on the planet (And without killing anybody...that anybody knows of).

---

What he said.

--------------------

And uh Dev, I think it obvious that all GUI's look similar for the simple reason there is really only one basic layout. Occam's Razor, a window is a window is a window, no matter what blinds you use. Which is why MS has never made a big deal out of the fact that KDE and Gnome, Apple OS or OS/2 all share similar "look and feel".

Bill Gates may never have killed anyone, but he did buy out and close down Homer Simpson's CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet.

[ 08-13-2004: Message edited by: AcidWarp ]

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

That's not to say that they've never ripped off, (or bought), anything either. Of course they've done both. Just saying they do a pretty damn good job on thier own as well. Gotta cover all the bases if you wanna stay the big boy on the block.

(kinda get the feeling that they indeed want to do that as well).

go read up AW, M$ did indeed code most of the base for OS/2

[ 08-13-2004: Message edited by: Devastator ]

--------------------

M$ worked on the GUI for OS/2 while IBM worked on the core.

Hell, because M$ still uses so much of IBM's technology (Object Linking and Embedding [OLE] aka ActiveX and Component Object Model [COM] are derived from Dynamic Data Exchange [DDE]), Microsoft to this day maintains a broad-ranging cross-licensing agreement with them.

Why say these if they had no involvement:

I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possible program, of all time. - Bill Gates, 1987

OS/2 is destined to be a very important piece of software. During the next 10 years, millions of programmers and users will utilize this system. - Bill Gates, 1988

There is virtually no application OS/2 cannot run. - Bill Gates, 1989

The goal for OS/2 is to be the universal operating system ... there is virtually no application in the world that OS/2 cannot support Most users of high-end applications ... want OS/2 - interview in "IBM Personal System Developer" (predecessor to "OS/2 Developer"), Winter 1990 issue.

OS/2 was intended as a protected-mode successor of MS-DOS and Windows. Notably, basic system calls were modeled after MS-DOS calls, their names even started with Dos and it was possible to link text mode applications in such a way that they could work on both systems (bound programs). Because of this heritage, in terms of look, feel and features, OS/2 is not unlike Windows in many ways; but it also shares similarities with Unix.

OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, as a text mode-only OS. It however featured a rich API for controlling the video display (VIO) and getting keyboard and mouse events, a sort of a protected-mode BIOS. Not surprisingly, the video and keyboard APIs were also available to bound programs on MS-DOS. The promised GUI was introduced with OS/2 1.1 in late 1988.

The collaboration between IBM and Microsoft unravelled around the time of the development of version 1.3, when IBM took full responsibility for the project. Microsoft and IBM had originally compromised that IBM would develop OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would develop OS/2 3.0; but the deal then completely fell apart. Reportedly, the dispute centered on the question whether to support the Intel 80286 CPU, or the 80386 processor. Eventually, Microsoft's OS/2 3.0 project became Windows NT 3.1, which was released in 1993. Windows NT featured an OS/2 1.x compatibility layer which would let one execute text mode OS/2 1.x applications. The execution of graphical OS/2 1.x applications was possible using an add-on. This OS/2 personality existed until version 5.0, better known as Windows 2000 and was dropped in Windows XP.

Microsoft released Windows 3.1 as its response to IBM's OS/2 2.0. Both Windows 95 and OS/2 eventually supported 32-bit APIs. For details and feature comparisons, see the History of Microsoft Windows page.

Overall, OS/2 failed to catch on in the consumer market, and is today little used outside certain niche markets where IBM traditionally had a stronghold. For example, many banks, especially Automated Teller Machines, run OS/2 with a customized user interface; French SNCF national railways use OS/2 1.x in dozens of thousands of ticket selling machines. Nevertheless, OS/2 still maintains a small and dedicated community of followers.

Although shortly after the release of Warp 4 in 1996, IBM began indicating that OS/2 would eventually be withdrawn, the company has not published a definite end of support date so far. The latest IBM version is 4.52 which was released for both desktop and server systems in December 2001. A company called Serenity Systems has been reselling OS/2 since 2001, calling it eComStation. The latest version is 1.1, released in May 2003.

IBM is still delivering fixes and updates on a regular basis. IBM urges customers to migrate their often highly complex applications to e-business technologies such as Java in a platform-neutral manner. Once application migration is completed, IBM recommends to migrate to a different operating system without giving any specific recommendations.

Even though some people had hoped that IBM would release OS/2 as open source, this is unlikely to happen since OS/2 contains much third-party code, much of it from Microsoft. Notably, although OS/2 2.0 is often believed to be IBM's own work, a beta version, accompanied by an SDK already had been released by Microsoft in the second half of 1990; OS/2 32-bit executable files have almost exactly the format of Windows 3.0 VxD device drivers (older 16-bit executables have the format of Windows executables). IBM seems mostly responsible for the GUI part of OS/2 (notably, the Presentation Manager API did not change in 2.0), and probably for the divergence in syntax and semantics compared to Windows. This was an underlying cause for the breakup between IBM and Microsoft when Windows 3.0 became much more successful than OS/2. However, open source operating systems such as Linux have already profited from OS/2 indirectly through IBM's release of the JFS file system, which was ported from the OS/2 code base.

Whatever snag. (the above is for AW) Besides, Xerox actually came up with the idea first. Also the mouse. Kinda goes together.

[ 08-13-2004: Message edited by: Devastator ]

--------------------

It occured to me that I was thinking of something else anyway. Back in the DOS days, BEFORE windows. I think it was when Gates bought QDOS from this guy for $50k, and decided to code independently instead of partnering with IBM.

--------------------

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

--------------------

besides (chants)

XEROX XEROX XEROX XEROX

[ 08-13-2004: Message edited by: Devastator ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Devastator:
Apple came up with the idea first, and asked M$ to help them implement it.

---

Technically, Xerox came up with it but thought it was useless and/or pointless to implement in their products, so they sold the intellectual property for chump change to Apple.

Xerox: "We don't know what we were thinking. Here, you do something with this."

But Apple had it before Windows 3.0 did. Dev is right.

I'll also side with Dev. Hard to agree with someone who doesn't have qualms about one of the shittiest operating systems ever made.

MS is running a much tighter shift now. .NET should show this. Anyone who is a developer should be loving Microsoft more and more every day with all the brand-spanking-new and oh-so-complete programming APIs and paradigm developments coming from MS. .NET kicks the shit out of Win32, MFC, STL and GDI combined. DirectX blows OpenGL right out of the freaking water, and C# will be the new industry standard programming language within 5 years as long as third-party efforts to get the .NET CLR running on *nix systems come through. Hell, it doesn't even have to be C#, thanks to language interoperability. It can be any .NET-compliant language you please, which can range from COBOL to Managed C++, broadening as languages are written to comply.

If the .NET Platform, Managed DirectX and XNA are any indication of where Microsoft is heading and how well they're gonna do, then I think we're all going to like Longhorn very, very much.

You *nixers can keep your C++ and hacky OS. What MS has made and is making now is doing more than half the work for me as a developer.

--------------------