Windows XP SP2 Beta Reviewed

worm eater writes "Ars Technica has a characteristically thorough review of Windows XP Service Pack 2 Beta, with plenty of screen shots. In a nutshell, it's all about security fixes, including a seriously beefed up firewall. The final release is expected this summer." The review concludes: "Overall, Microsoft has made a step in the right direction with this service pack. The increased focus on security will be good not only for the average user who does not spend much time thinking about security her system, but also for 'power users' and those who work supporting end users."

Comments

if it ain't broke . . .

[r5t8i6y3]

i personally advise customers to *never* update their windows systems.

i receive many calls regarding windows computers that are no longer working and when i ask when the system last worked they say before they updated. then they express their confusion at having been told to keep their system up to date.

part of the problem is that (beyond the initial service pack for any particular microsoft product) not enough people install the updates so that the bugs in the updates are not addressed.

"Power Users" DON'T USE WINDOWS...

[TheCeltic]

Duh..

Windows still a single-user OS.

[aphor]

Because Unix was designed for multiple concurrent remote users, protecting each users' environment (and the OS as a dependancy) was a core requirement and early design decision.

Because multiple concurrent remote users is not a feature of Microsoft Windows XP SP2, security will always be an afterthought. While it may be "securable" in that you can turn off almost everything, and maybe even default configuration in that mode is possible, security *breaks* desirable functionality. Apps must be written by design to accomodate security requirements or they will require turning off security features. When the apps are the reason you tolerate the computer and the OS, the conflicting requirements of the app and recommendations of the OS will quickly turn into an insecure ball of mush. Spyware is case and point: by mere existence.

The design philosophy of Microsoft Windows is to give developers unlimited power over the users they can acquire. These powers are supposed to be used for good, but there are no real checks and balances unless you are like Ralph Nader and can use the courts and organise class action. Even then, people get abused by negligent and malicious programmers. It is by design.

A PC is a user; a user is a means to power and money. Users are merely a means to another end. Whom does security serve? How?

A unix server is a community of users. The synergy of users in that community is a means to power and money. Plurality of interests and the common-ground and balance between them is the heart of unix. Whom does security serve and how?

Redmond does not believe in security. They believe you should feel secure, but you need not actually *be* secure. If you feel secure enough to pay them before you get uprooted, then maybe it is cheaper to put up a false front in the name of security? I'm not saying you can't do things right on Windows, but Redmond keeps making it so damned hard!

If you want Microsoft to make Windows secure, then demand to share a big fat beefy PC (with more than a few CPUs) with a few other users. Providing an environment where *peers* can trust each other is the foundation of secure computing. Demand it. Put up some ducats and show them how much you want it. Hold those ducats and don't give them up until you have the deal you want.