Pink Floyd Veteran Posted August 8, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 8, 2004 Oh you poor poor guys using WinXP. Glad I have Win2k. I don't think that MS should have done this, but I think the real purpose of it was to limit P2P as well as worms. And it is going to work, isn't it? yeah beddy, keeps windows 2000 what handle only half of 600mb of data in same time and xp can handle 1.3gb in overwall xp is just 3 times fastet than xp on most machines.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted August 8, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 8, 2004 In further reading, it almost sounds like this "feature" is misunderstood. I don't think it is designed to screw you up and goof on your peer to peer, but is really just supposed to help protect your system.Anyone else get that read from the data out there? Thanks, BK I 100% agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thop Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 (edited) although the intension is good; the way how it's implelemented and give NO option to disable or enable such an important variable is BAD that's exactly the point. if it would be easy to disable all the "OMG OMG OMG MS bad, must fix!!" guys would do it in a second and render the whole thing useless. as you can see not even hex editing can stop them!! :laugh: :laugh: ps. i'm not saying the "fix" per se is a bad thing, just that 95% don't need it and will just make things worse instead of improving them! Edited August 9, 2004 by thop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Frosty Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Looks like there will be a lot of '3rd party' patches that will fix this if you catch my drift :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaticX Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 theres got to be a way! i was looking in the group policy editor i saw some new things added (well duh). maybe somewhere there is a setting to **** around with! come on guys, got to be a way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptiPlex Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 theres got to be a way! i was looking in the group policy editor i saw some new things added (well duh). maybe somewhere there is a setting to **** around with! come on guys, got to be a way! somebody already patched it, check iexbeta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystical112 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 somebody already patched it, check iexbeta i cant seem to find it on there site... unless its on the forum i dont want to register just to search for that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz- Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 yeah beddy, keeps windows 2000 what handle only half of 600mb of data in same time and xp can handle 1.3gbin overwall xp is just 3 times fastet than xp on most machines.. wtf? wheres babelfish when you need it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted August 9, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 9, 2004 your point is? btw you should use bablefish too ;) and oh, english isnt all our native language. Personally, english is my 3rd one... tah tah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphax Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 There's some essential information missing here (I did _try_ to read all the 11 pages in this thread). What exactly does this new feature in SP2 do, once it detects an application trying to open connections to unreachable hosts? Will it block the application from making any new connections? Will it throttle the connections? Only for that application? For the whole TCP/IP stack? Also note that the error message in the EventID really seems to imply that we're talking about "concurrent connection attempts" not failing connections or connection attempts to unreachable hosts or whatever. I wouldn't take an e-mail from MS as fact (nor the message in the EventID) that easily. There are some people here that need to realise that this feature CAN, in fact, influence legit applications. It's not unthinkable that a BitTorrent client would try to make several connections to unreachable hosts. And then there's programs like All Seeing Eye and Gamespy which may also try to connect to unreachable hosts in rapid succession. But obviously this all depends on what exactly this feature does once it detects whatever it's supposed to detect (concurrent connection attempts or failed connection attempts?). Has anyone actually done some experiments and gotten some answers for these questions? I can at least confirm that whatever this feature is, it IS being triggered by my Azureus client. It shows up in my Event log when I start a .torrent. It seems very likely to me that this feature can therefore prevent Azureus from working correctly or at least working efficiently (since it did complete the download). I will have to install Gamespy or All Seeing Eye so maybe I'll edit this post later on if I find out anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I 100% agree with you I guess I'm not a loner freak after all. Thanks man! :) :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicedreams Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 GO LINUX! I guess I'll just stick with SP1 for my WinXP partition for my gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporkguy Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 hmmm, i'll put-off upgrading for a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 ditto.....as with most fresh releases of this magnitude, there are going to be some mishaps of sorts.....I'm holding off for a few days.....sides, if it ain't broken then why fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted August 9, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 9, 2004 GO LINUX! I knew a troll would finally arrive in this thread. It was just a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuxi Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 I knew a troll would finally arrive in this thread. It was just a matter of time. I knew a fanboy would finally arrive in this thread. It was just a matter of time. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_I am Reptar Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 FIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.lvllord.de/4226fix/4226fix-en.htm FIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! worked fine here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted August 9, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 9, 2004 I knew a fanboy would finally arrive in this thread. It was just a matter of time. :p As far as I know, this is a thread on XP SP2, not on "Go Linux!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluvatar Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 People don't get it. This is a good thing. It doesn't affect P2P or anything at all.It only affects connections that will never happen because the host is unreachable (=dead) so there would be no connection in the first place anyway. It just limits the attempts per second to try and reach those dead hosts again. If anything it will make your connection faster because less bandwith is being wasted on waiting on responses and resending of connection requests from/to unreachable networks. If you change the value you're connection might actually get slower because it gets satured with useless connection requests. For once MS did a really good thing and all the kids are crying like if someone stole their sweets. It absolutely does affect P2P! Try becoming a UltraPeer/Hub in your G1/G2 P2P of choice, almost all the connections will time out. Many connections (hundreds) are opened when operating within that type of mode. The regular users (leaf mode) *may* not see a drastic decrease in performance due to less connections being open but if many users upgrade to SP2 while operating in UP/Hub mode then it could ruin the P2P network connectivity in short order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 It hasn't affected me whatsoever and I do ALOT of simultaneous internal network transfers as well as downloading/uploading off the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverUnknown Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 i havent noticed any slow downs when dl'n so i'm not going to play with anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thop Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Illuvatar, i believe the whole thing might just be a placebo thing. People will read: XP2 makes P2P slower and suddenly they will see downloads being slower. Nothing different from before, just that they are more focused on seeing slow downloads now, always thinking: This must be due to SP2! While actually nothing changed. May sound funny, but the brain gets tricked very easily. Like i said, there are actually a few people who will benefit from this patch, but not the average P2P user and definitely not the average joe. But with the fix being so easy to apply quite a few people will just apply it without needing it at all. And make the whole situation worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluvatar Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 (edited) I do realize that there are different intents and purposes for this security measure however there is no placebo affect when measuring the performace impact on a P2P network I have tested this myself and this has many of the developers for major P2P programs in quite a tizzy. Like I mentioned earlier not everyone will see it at first. For example the Gnutella 1/2 Networks: The 95% of the population that just open the program download a little / upload a little will never see any thing wrong. However that 5% that are operating in UP/Hub mode are the infrastructure for maintaining the ENTIRE networks. The clients operating in this mode are opening and closing many tens and usually many hundreds of connections at any given time. With this new security measure 90% of those incoming and outgoing connections will just fail in a timeout error. Once SP2 propogates to the masses these networks will start to falter. The overall performace will be less and less. Emule and BT will not be as affected by this measure as Gnutella might be due simply to the nature of the network topology however it may be noticeble to some extent. Unfortunatly I have no suggestion as to safely get around this. I do however agree in theory that under certain circumstances this security measure can be useful. I am sure the developers of P2P programs are on top of it though and a few have been known to get MS to change their minds on a few measures. Edited August 10, 2004 by Iluvatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thop Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Then these 5% should apply the patch, i'm all for it. It's just that the other 95%, who don't necessarily need it or don't need it at all, should not apply the patch just because it's there. Unless you notice things are fishy in general (and not just a single download or two) you shouldn't install it. Don't go into panic mode :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBtje Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 However that 5% that are operating in UP/Hub mode are the infrastructure for maintaining the ENTIRE networks. The clients operating in this mode are opening and closing many tens and usually many hundreds of connections at any given time. With this new security measure 90% of those incoming and outgoing connections will just fail in a timeout error. Once SP2 propogates to the masses these networks will start to falter. The overall performace will be less and less. this will solve the problems for those 5%, but I doubt it is only 5%.. we download a lot ;) https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry584334170 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts