137 Gbyte hard drive capacity barrier
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: Need help with Emachines T2542
Next: No Sound
From: kony on 28 Feb 2006 03:05 On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:52:04 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> wrote: >Lets try this.... > >You have a bucket with ten holes in it...... wouldn't the water leak slower >if you could plug 5 of them? > Not of the plug requires enlarging the holes then a few plugs fall out. Sp2, as with any service pack, has it's own share of compatibility issues and IF one wants the targeted purpose, they don't necessarily want 1/2 the holes patched, they will take the steps that patch most of them, leaving only those compatibility issues and also the higher overhead and new bugs from this new code.
From: don on 1 Mar 2006 21:59 Ok So lets me see.... Sp2 is nothing more than a significant amount of updates and patches rolled into one package.... what is your solution for those of us that still want to use windows...... those of use who don't want to use Linux (not that I have a problem with that) ......Those of us who just want to turn on the box and go on the net and check the net for info..... Should we never patch our installations? because without at least one patch we would be connected to the net for about 40 seconds before we got the sasser virus. Should we just live with our computer shutting down about every 5 minutes(or less)? That would not even give us time to check the groups for the answers of the gods (like you). You would have no advice to give!!! What would you do with your day? I'm done with this topic. "kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:n21802t04kb9vnpv5bq6lbl3qeiqij68c8(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:52:04 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> > wrote: > > >Lets try this.... > > > >You have a bucket with ten holes in it...... wouldn't the water leak slower > >if you could plug 5 of them? > > > > Not of the plug requires enlarging the holes then a few > plugs fall out. Sp2, as with any service pack, has it's own > share of compatibility issues and IF one wants the targeted > purpose, they don't necessarily want 1/2 the holes patched, > they will take the steps that patch most of them, leaving > only those compatibility issues and also the higher overhead > and new bugs from this new code.
From: kony on 2 Mar 2006 05:29 On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:59:43 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> wrote: >Ok > >So lets me see.... > >Sp2 is nothing more than a significant amount of updates and patches rolled >into one package.... what is your solution for those of us that still want >to use windows...... those of use who don't want to use Linux (not that I >have a problem with that) ......Those of us who just want to turn on the box >and go on the net and check the net for info..... Oh? Are you sure SP2 doesn't add what is not, with the separate patch approach? > >Should we never patch our installations? > You should discriminately patch what you NEED patched, rather than mindlessly changing a working system. If you have a use, bug, security vulnerability that is specifically addressed. >because without at least one patch we would be connected to the net for >about 40 seconds before we got the sasser virus. Ok, then you have an entirely different problem than the patch, your system is not configured securely. > >Should we just live with our computer shutting down about every 5 minutes(or >less)? No, if you care about security, you should either learn more about it or at least take the generic approaches others do, for example firewall. Here's the patch for that though, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-011.mspx > >That would not even give us time to check the groups for the answers of the >gods (like you). > >You would have no advice to give!!! SP2 can be good for some users. That doesn't mean it's good for all. If you shun standard security practices and only wait for each vulnerability, in turn, to be patched through MS then you're always behind the curve. Those looking to exploit you are not going to only do so through previously-patched flaws, on the contrary it would only make sense to target open vulnerabilities. > >What would you do with your day? You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses aren't running at XP SP2 level? Somehow the world manages... or maybe not "somehow", maybe as I wrote, it's not necessary for all. It's not that I'm wholely against SP2 or any other patch, but the devil is in the details, exactly what your needs are and whether any issues associated with a given patch (or huge bundle like with SP2) effect the user/system, or if they might prefer selective installation of particular patches.
From: don on 5 Mar 2006 23:52 Kony said "You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses aren't running at XP SP2 level" I deal with businesses and governments every day and all the ones that I deal with and all the one I know of (even the ones I am not responsible for) are patched well above sp2. in fact the enterprise update package will not work unless patched SP2 or later. "kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:8phd02huksjj5svt5m3ohg33gqlujcpuje(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:59:43 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> > wrote: > > >Ok > > > >So lets me see.... > > > >Sp2 is nothing more than a significant amount of updates and patches rolled > >into one package.... what is your solution for those of us that still want > >to use windows...... those of use who don't want to use Linux (not that I > >have a problem with that) ......Those of us who just want to turn on the box > >and go on the net and check the net for info..... > > Oh? Are you sure SP2 doesn't add what is not, with the > separate patch approach? > > > > > >Should we never patch our installations? > > > > You should discriminately patch what you NEED patched, > rather than mindlessly changing a working system. If you > have a use, bug, security vulnerability that is specifically > addressed. > > >because without at least one patch we would be connected to the net for > >about 40 seconds before we got the sasser virus. > > Ok, then you have an entirely different problem than the > patch, your system is not configured securely. > > > > > >Should we just live with our computer shutting down about every 5 minutes(or > >less)? > > No, if you care about security, you should either learn more > about it or at least take the generic approaches others do, > for example firewall. > > Here's the patch for that though, > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-011.mspx > > > > > >That would not even give us time to check the groups for the answers of the > >gods (like you). > > > >You would have no advice to give!!! > > SP2 can be good for some users. That doesn't mean it's good > for all. If you shun standard security practices and only > wait for each vulnerability, in turn, to be patched through > MS then you're always behind the curve. Those looking to > exploit you are not going to only do so through > previously-patched flaws, on the contrary it would only make > sense to target open vulnerabilities. > > > > > > >What would you do with your day? > > You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses > aren't running at XP SP2 level? Somehow the world > manages... or maybe not "somehow", maybe as I wrote, it's > not necessary for all. It's not that I'm wholely against > SP2 or any other patch, but the devil is in the details, > exactly what your needs are and whether any issues > associated with a given patch (or huge bundle like with SP2) > effect the user/system, or if they might prefer selective > installation of particular patches.
From: kony on 6 Mar 2006 09:57
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:52:22 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> wrote: >Kony said >"You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses aren't running at >XP SP2 level" > >I deal with businesses and governments every day and all the ones that I >deal with and all the one I know of (even the ones I am not responsible for) >are patched well above sp2. in fact the enterprise update package will not >work unless patched SP2 or later. > Then I guess you are surprised. Bet you'd be surprised that some even run 9x still on the clients. |