Microsoft has admitted that hotfix Q811493 has performance issues when applied to WinXP systems. Some people mentioned in the TheRegister article say that it affects Win2K as well.

If you unapply the fix then it should fix the speed issues but you'd be left with the security hole. It's only exploitable locally however according to Microsoft.

- Trevor

I can tell you that this is very true. After installing this "fix" my system ran noticably slower. (at about half the speed it was suposed to be working at) And I'm running win2k.

Uninstalling the "fix" solved things and the speed went back to normal.

Thanks. I noticed that a recent hotfix had degraded my machine's performance significantly but couldn't tell which one. Q811493 is gone now and the box appears to run noticeably faster

How do you unapply it (it doesn't appear in the add/remove programs control panel).

It should though.

On my pc it appears in the control panel under add/remove programs as "windows 2000 hotfix (pre-SP4)"

It was right at the end of the list on mine. "Windows XP Hotfix (SP2) Q811493)"

- Trevor

Thanks... XP has been bugging me all morning to allow it to install that. I'll just put a stop to it right now.

Nope, can't say that I've noticed any difference in speed, and it's definitely installed on my work box.

It's these so called fixes that made me disable auto-notify and stop installing hotfuxes altogether.

I hope you are hiding behind a firewall then.

hotfuxes

Typo, Freudian slip, or a jab at Microsoft?

I just uninstalled it and things are so much better. Limewire Pro (just got it yesterday) runs about 30x faster. Last night I was thinking "I paid $10 for THIS?".

I love this BBS.
-Zeke

LOL
It doesn't matter what you "hide" behind, there is always a way to get hacked. I don't administer a network of any kind, so as a single user security means jack to me. Someone could break into my house and throw my computer off of my roof too but I'm not going to get an armed guard at the door.

as a single user security means jack to me

What about when someone hacks your computer, and then uses it as part of a DDoS (distributed denial of service)? Security fixes aren't just for your benefit.

I think a reformat & reinstall takes care of that, I do it every few months anyway. Quick and painless, I don't have to worry about fixing my broken windows or worry about being "up to date" or worry about being hacked.
The reason I choose to not worry or be concerned about security is because I have better ways to spend my time, also I don't get paid for it. I let the professionals worry about it, maybe one day they can make an OS that doesn't need a new "fix" every week. [linux-mac deflector] And is widely used by the masses of non-computer savvy people [/linux-mac deflector]

Can't we just agree to disagree?

What about when someone hacks your computer, and then uses it as part of a DDoS (distributed denial of service)? Security fixes aren't just for your benefit.

I think a reformat & reinstall takes care of that, I do it every few months anyway. Quick and painless, I don't have to worry about fixing my broken windows or worry about being "up to date" or worry about being hacked.

It's likely that it's from the compromised PC of someone with exactly that attitude, that I've been receiving an identical virus email every ten minutes for the past day and a half. Should I just wait a "few months" until this user reinstalls their PC, and hope that next time it's infected I'm not on the list?

Presumably you have no files on that PC that it would concern you to have (a) deleted or (b) emailed to a random address harvested from Usenet?

I don't administer a network of any kind

Oh, I see, you mean some other person has connected your computer to the Internet without your knowledge?

You at least administer the connection between your PC and the Internet; it's a network you can choose to administer irresponsibly or responsibly. If you choose not to administer it at all, you always have the option of unplugging it.

Peter

It's likely that it's from the compromised PC of someone with exactly that attitude, that I've been receiving an identical virus email every ten minutes for the past day and a half. Should I just wait a "few months" until this user reinstalls their PC, and hope that next time it's infected I'm not on the list?

I didn't realize it was so hard to block a sender.

Presumably you have no files on that PC that it would concern you to have (a) deleted or (b) emailed to a random address harvested from Usenet?

(a) I keep my personal data backed up.
(b) Why would I care if someone sees a picture of my grandma, or gets a copy of my favorite N'sync song (joking)

Oh, I see, you mean some other person has connected your computer to the Internet without your knowledge?

Did someone wake up on the anal side of bed this morning? I guess I should have been more specific in that I am a home user with a single computer connected to the internet (which technically IS a network setup). I was trying to differentiate myself from a corporate network with 10's, 100's, or 1000's of connected users.

Look everyone, I'm tired of being attacked by super computer geeks (I'm merely an average computer geek) with a chip on their shoulder so I will refrain from reading or responding to this thread.

it must be pointed out at this point that not every pc user must be a techie in order to use the internet, or pass some exam before access is granted.

Giving someone a hard time for lack of knowledge is unfair.

Virus/hack problems are NOT user problems, they are caused by poor operating systems with more security holes than swiss cheese.
Good old MS put out a rushed fix that introduces another problem, then the new problem goes to the bottom of the "list to be fixed pile". It is SOP for them.
Users just get caught in the middle and shouldn't be expected to know this stuff. To them, the PC is an APPLIANCE and rightly so.

it must be pointed out at this point that not every pc user must be a techie in order to use the internet, or pass some exam before access is granted.

Giving someone a hard time for lack of knowledge is unfair.

That's a good point. And I hope I wouldn't do such a thing; I hope I wouldn't give a hard time to somebody who didn't know about Windows Update, for instance. But I don't think that's what's going on in this particular case: I still maintain that knowing what Windows Update does and yet deliberately turning it off is irresponsible, especially if accompanied by an attitude that says "I'm not interested in hearing about the havoc an infected PC could cause to other people on the Internet, because my own personal data is backed up and would be unaffected."

Peter

point taken.
'My' network here at work is constantly bombarded every day and the email antivirus scan traps more than a thousand virused emails a month (good old guinevere).
I would still prefer a company that you could actually trust the fixes from though.

Then we wouldn't forced into the trap were the servicepack/security patch actually does harm.
Incedentally, my company is one of those that will not touch any MS service pack or update with a ten foot pole until it has been internally QA'd and we have a lot of systems to QA.

Then we wouldn't forced into the trap were the servicepack/security patch actually does harm.
Incedentally, my company is one of those that will not touch any MS service pack or update with a ten foot pole until it has been internally QA'd and we have a lot of systems to QA.

A company I worked with took the same approach, until they started to get hit everytime a new worm came out as people's unpatched machines sitting at home VPN'd into the corporate network got hit via their Internet connections. Being VPN'd in those machines then infected the unpatched machines inside the corporate network. Now they have the policy of patching as soon as the hotfixes appear. They have lost far more time to not patching than they have from hotfixes breaking everything.

I found this nifty program from microsoft over a year ago i think. it helps rolling patches out to over 30 servers and 4 workstations.