April 2008 - Posts
Just some quick notes on what I've noticed, or been told by people I trust, about XP SP3 so far. My own experiences are based on a clean install at home and a few test upgrades at work (ah the benefits of being paid to do R&D).
What XP Service Pack 3 is - and is not.
Windows XP SP3 is a collection of hotfixes and patches that are rolled up into one giant patch for Windows XP. Unlike SP2, SP3 does not make substantial changes to the way Windows XP works and does not add a lot of new features.
The few new features that are added are more along the lines of fixing problems in the boiler room rather than a complete refit of the whole ship. This might sound a bit dull and if you're hoping SP3 is going to make Windows XP do something magic then you probably will be disappointed with it. However, it's an important update and I'd recommend it to any Windows XP user.
You can slipstream XP SP3 into any older version of the Windows XP install media to create a XP SP3 install disk, if you wish. However, do not slipstream XP SP3 from a vista machine, a bug has been reported where doing this invalidates the licence keys.
This version of SP3 is for 32-bit 'full' Windows clients only. It is not designed for the 64-bit version of XP Professional, Embedded XP or Windows Fundamentals and will give an error message if you try to install it on one of these systems. Apparently there will be a separate update for the embedded systems/Win Fundamentals later.
What does SP3 do?
Mass deployment should be easier, with built in support for the Intel High-Definition sound architecture (installing the XP hotfix in earlier versions of XP automatically sometimes proved tricky), and the ability to forgo entering a licence key during setup for those who don't use volume licences for some reason. You'll still need to do this and then activate afterwards though, but it's a nice feature for businesses that haven't taken up volume licence options and want to distribute a standard build based on their OEM licences.
XP SP3 is supported in Apple's BootCamp, but you will need to update Apple's BootCamp install on Windows itself because updates to various Apple drivers and components used in Windows are required. (Spotted by Colin Barnhorst and tested here).
Networking improvements add support for Black Hole detection and Network Access Protection (aka NAP), both implemented much the same way as in Vista. I'm not sure that I'm overly taken with the idea of NAP (possibly more on that in another article) but Black Hole detection should help people who have 'network weirdness' issues.
Both IE6 and IE7 are supported, that is, SP3 will provide the latest updates to whichever version you have installed. It will not force you to upgrade from IE6 to IE7. Neither does it force you to upgrade Windows Media Player (I don't think it applies any patches to either version of WMP though.
What does SP3 not do?
It doesn't make big changes to the way your computer works. It doesn't appear to break any of the apps I use (take that with a pinch of salt because there's a whole world of apps that I don't use).
It won't turn your XP machine into a half XP half Vista hybrid. It won't turn water into wine and it won't feel different at all in day-to-day use.
It doesn't change any of the limits on things like memory (e.g. it doesn't allow >4Gb support via PAE or anything) or file sharing or licences or whatever.
There's some debate over whether or not SP3 speeds XP up, and while it certainly feels pretty snappy to me, it's difficult to put a hard number on this. It certainly doesn't feel like it's slowed anything down.
So should you install it?
If you've got a fully patched XP SP2 system that you're really happy with, there's no rush but I'd still suggest you install it once it's been out for a little while and the rest of us have discovered the few problems with the update process that might still be hiding. If you're an obsessive geek about these things like me then you'll probably ignore that and actually be running it already, and more power to you.
If you're building a fresh OS install then I don't see any reason not to install SP3 as part of the setup. Heck, it'll make the setup routine slightly easier, that's a reason to do it right away. Just don't expect any major changes, this is a simple tune-up, not a new engine and re-spray.
I was originally going to base the title on The Scorpions' "Rock You Like a Hurricane" but then I realised that "suck you" was open to all kinds of misinterpretation and wouldn't end well.
Still on with what I really wanted to say. I've just done a clean rebuild of my XP desktop machine, partly because it hadn't been done for about 2 years and was due, and partly because I wanted to install XP Service Pack 3 now it's been released.
So XP SP3 installs very quickly, seems nice and snappy (much more so than Vista, despite my hardware easily being towards the top of the "vista premium capable" territory, and all is good. It's funny how XP with just a few of the apps I use on Windows installed feels much more like "home" than Vista with all of my Windows apps. Office 2007 installed well and everything is working nicely with ActiveSync for my phone, iTunes is working and if I can manage my day and listen to music while doing it then I'm pretty much happy.
Except... I've been trying to get used to Windows Live Writer and I'm certainly a big fan of Live Messenger, and if you go to get these apps at the moment, you need to download the Windows Live Installer, a 'wrapper' for various Windows Live apps, all of which are similar to Live Writer and Messenger (supposed to be small and lightweight, with a focus on doing a job and doing it well).
Now I've got to agree with Lloyd and Rory here, the installer is fundamentally broken, and frustrating beyond all reason if you only want one or two apps from the Live 'bundle'.
Yesterday I downloaded a 2Mb installer "wrapper" and ran it, and straight away I was bombarded with questions about whether or not I wanted to make Windows Live my default search provider (no thanks, I like to find things when I'm looking for them) or install some kind of toolbar (Sure, I like having my browser window half-covered in useless buttons and widgets, it isn't like I loaded my browser to read web pages or anything), and something else I can't remember right now but I said 'no' to.
After this, it went into some kind of mode where it started searching my hard drive for live apps. Apparently, rather than checking the 'known' places on the hard disk, check the registry to see if the apps were registered there or even do an efficient search of my hard disk, it apparently wanted to do a bit by bit comparison of everything in my computer room. With this done, it then spent a while 'downloading' my selected apps and finally, 20 minutes later, told me the install was "cancelled" which was a surprise to me as I hadn't done anything to cancel it, and then offered to dump a copy onto my desktop so I could try again later. Hmmm. Despite being "cancelled", the installer managed to install itself (huh?) onto my computer so that each reinstall attempt produced odd error messages like the first "cancelled" except much less 'helpful'. I gave up yesterday and it was only after much swearing and cursing today, that I finally managed to get messenger and live writer installed.
Let's be clear about this... Windows Live Installer took longer to fail to install messenger and live writer than Corel Paint Shop Pro X took to install, and PSP X is hardly a lightweight application. Microsoft, I've got to ask... what on earth was the thinking behind this? I can see how it might be nice for someone who wants all the Live apps to be able to get them in one download, but this installer is a cranky, unreliable, little ***, and that's when it actually works. It's a painful awful experience for someone who just wants to grab live writer, or messenger or mail to have to sit through this crap. Live Writer and Messenger are both great little apps that I <3 love <3, even if messenger winks do make talking to my teenage niece an adventure in frankly incomprehensible popups and txt spk (love ya really KC!), but the problems with the installer really do need to be addressed. If I didn't already know how much I liked and really wanted messenger and writer, the chances are I'd have given up and used something else after the first time it crashed and burned.
If you want to download a copy of Windows Live Messenger directly, without having to bother with the installer wrapper, you can visit the website of Windows Messenger MVP Jonathan Kay and grab a copy from his links. If I get to hear of work-arounds for other live software I'll post them here too.
So it seems the fruits of Ray Ozzie's labour at Microsoft are starting to appear in public at last. And I for one say "Your point being...?" I'd love to link to their blog at this point to let them explain it, but it seems that their .live.com server is knackered at the moment. Bodes well for the mesh service doesn't it?
Apparently it's a platform that is designed to put me at the centre of my digital world. Oh good. I thought I was already at their centre, what with them not being sentient yet and me being the owner of all these devices, but who knew.
I'm fairly sure I've heard something like this from Microsoft before, and I'm fairly sure it got laughed at back then too.
So on a supported device, I need to install a client and I can share folders full of files with myself. Or with other people. And even sign up to RSS feeds and aggregate them into one or two big custom RSS feeds.Wow. I've never been able to do that before *ahem*. And I can even send them messages, in an instant. It's good to see Microsoft launch a new product instead of rebadging old stuff... or not so much.
I'm so super-psyched to share applications and data between my work computer (oh wait... my employer might not want me installing unapproved software. Or putting their data on devices they don't own.) and my mobile devices (oh wait, where's the iPod client? Where's the iPhone client? Where's the Symbian client? Where's the god help us Zune and Windows Mobile clients?) and my home computer (uh... no wait, no Mac client yet. No word of a Linux client at all).
This lack of support for other devices is a big serious Elephant in the living room. Don't underestimate the platform problem: Unless it supports all the devices that a user might reasonably be expected to want to use with it then it isn't solving my problems or your problems, it's solving the problems of some hypothetical marketing construct that doesn't exist in the real world.
The support for other "real" operating systems is obvious, but you might think I'm being a bit silly asking for iPod, Zune and phone support but consider this: Why shouldn't I be able to lot onto my handheld device and download a file from my home PC via this 'mesh'? Wouldn't that actually be really helpful if you're driving to a meeting and realise you've left important data behind? Wouldn't it be great to stop for coffee somewhere and use 3G or wireless connections to grab the file onto your mobile phone without much hassle?
Or what if I want to Sync / add contacts or diary entries between my phone, my exchange server account at work and my online web2.0 calendar? Or to hear a song while I'm out and about, ask my home computer to buy it for me (so it will be securely stored and backed up and stuff) then download it via this 'mesh' to my music player or to push it onto my phone ready to select as a ringtone.
So it's client software that lets me send messages and files between computers, as long as those computers run Microsoft operating systems and I'm allowed to install software and to share the data that is on them and aren't behind a firewall that kicks the Microsoft client to the kerb. Good luck with that). That can't be it. I mean I've heard so much about how earth-shatteringly new this is, there must be more to it. (There is also some more reasoned analysis here that isn't either the fanboyism in the stuff I've linked to or a cynical git laughing at it all like me, if you're interested).
Oh, apparently I can actually log onto my " Live Desktop" and access any of my "meshed" devices from any other "meshed" device. So I could be sitting at work and gotomypc at home... er I mean Go Back To My Ma...er..PC. So what we've got here is "Groove.net Live!" plus Messenger, plus being able to get to your PC anywher.. ok I'll stop joking about their "original" remote desktop feature now. OopsI did it again!
Of course, it's all sprayed with a veneer of XML and RSS to keep it sounding fresh and "Web 2.0" and so-on. I guess that makes the difference. It isn't the technology that's new, it's the packaging!
As ever with a lot of web 2.0 stuff, I find myself asking: What problem does this actually solve and does anyone in the real world outside of the 250 people who hang on to every word posted on valleywag actually have this problem? I mean don't get me wrong, if they solve the platform problem then it might be nice to get all these various things rolled up into one handy tool, but there isn't really anything new or even exciting here. Is there?
I found this post on Lifehacker via Kurt Wismer, someone whose comments I've kept an eye on for since I started reading the alt.comp.virus newsgroup, which is quite a time ago now. Kurt seems to have the habit of annoying people by simply speaking the truth as he sees it and not spending too much time and effort on sugar-coating. I'd personally consider that an asset in people who are there to talk about security but many people still seem to blame the messenger when someone points out the flaws in a plan.
Anyway, the Lifehacker post talks about an add-in for Firefox that allows you to choose to "download and execute" files instead of downloading them then having to go and execute them yourself in a separate action. (No I'm not going to link to the Firefox add-in itself, if you're stupid enough to think that sounds like a good idea you can go and find it yourself.)
Sure, it's convenient to be able to have something download and auto-run. Sadly, it isn't just convenient for you as the computer user but also for anyone who'd like to compromise your security; auto-running programs on download is quite simply a very bad idea and I'm actually rather disappointed that people still think otherwise.
When you download a file from a web-browser, leave the browser and go to use the file via the operating system's file management tools (explorer, finder, etc) you have an opportunity to inspect the file before opening it. You can see if it's what you expected. You can easily view the file properties if you want to be careful. If you're running a typical Windows antivirus and anti-spyware package, you can usually right-click on the file and get a report on what it is and whether or not it is clean. If it's an executable archive (e.g. a self-extracting zip file, a common way of distributing downloads in Windows) you have the opportunity to open the archive without 'executing' any of the code - something I always do when I can.
All of this is gone when your browser opens the file for you. Sure, most virus scanners will inspect a file before allowing it to run, but you miss the chance to view the file and say "hmm, I thought I was downloading an archive here, so why does it actually appear to be a batch file?"
I want to address the comments on the lifehacker post about 'trust'. The idea is that you can do this with downloads you 'trust' without any worry. Now I'd agree that some download sites are more trustworthy than others, but there is still a problem with trust: It doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means.
Some people talk about 'trust' in computing (hell any walk of life) as if it is some kind of magic ray that makes it OK to abandon any sensible precautions. That isn't the case. I trust my best friend who I've known since school to not harm me. I hope that he and his family would say the same about me. All that this "trust" means is that we wouldn't do anything to harm each other intentionally - that doesn't mean that accidents won't happen or that mistakes won't be made.
So you trust Microsoft. Or Apple. Or Mozilla. Or Redhat. Fine. You trust them not to intentionally set out to do you and your computer harm. Great. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, with a couple of caveats... Firstly, you had better hope that their definition of not doing anything to harm customers like you roughly corresponds with your definition of harm. Secondly, you better hope that they don't see a need to trample on the edges of your needs in order to protect themselves. Lastly, you better hope they never make a mistake.
Good luck with all that, especially the last one.
Still, Lifehacker is all about "getting things done" and clearly they're all busy people over there. So I have a suggestion to "get things done" in terms of what will inevitably happen to people who auto-run content they don't know much about: Email your usernames and passwords to hackers so they and you don't have to go to the trouble of having you download and running something without inspecting it first. It's OK. You don't have to thank me now.