Windows XP SP2 TCP/IP "Patch"

[Frank]

If you are receiving any 4226 errors in your event log I would definitely patch it.

586194710[/snapback]

These kind of statements drive me nuts. You shouldn't just run out and grab the patch. Handing information like that on a tech board is just giving newbies bad advise.

You should FIRST investigate where the problem is coming from. It could be a program your using but it could also be a virus. If it is a virus you shouldn't patch and go on with your merry life.

[Mastertech]

If it is a Virus then 4226 errors are the least of your worries. I'm not worried about getting infected are you? I keep my system patched, have updated AV and a firewall. All my clients have the same thing. There is nothing dangerous about this patch, stop trying to imply that there is.

[Mastertech]

The patch really does nothing to help your p2p downloads. I investigated it myself and honestly, this is a lot of fuss for nothing. You can do everything you wanted just fine. At least this is the case for me.

Yes it will still work but initial server queries can be slower when you initiate a search. It all depends on the P2P client. Most of them have resume features that can be seriously hampered by this if the computers you are connecting to are off line.

[mugwhump]

Edit... never mind I figured it out.

The patch really does nothing to help your p2p downloads. I investigated it myself and honestly, this is a lot of fuss for nothing. You can do everything you wanted just fine. At least this is the case for me.

586216708[/snapback]

Same here. Patch is pointless.

[Mastertech]

It obviously cannot help P2P download speeds.

[John Veteran]

You should FIRST investigate where the problem is coming from.  It could be a program your using but it could also be a virus.  If it is a virus you shouldn't patch and go on with your merry life.

586223148[/snapback]

Exactly. The system doesn't place a "warning" in the Event Log for nothing. A warning means Windows is telling you there's something you should investigate. Windows is basically saying "this might be nothing but if there is a problem, you should fix it".

[Mastertech]

Windows is basically saying "this might be nothing but if there is a problem, you should fix it".

Exactly which means use the patch. Seriously, this "warning" means one of your internet applications is being hindered by the limit.

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

I only got the 4226 error when I used Azureus, then I patched it and it went away :)

[John Veteran]

Exactly which means use the patch. Seriously, this "warning" means one of your internet applications is being hindered by the limit.

586225063[/snapback]

It does not! Do you understand TCP/IP? Do you realize that the types of connections it limits aren't... Nevermind, it seems there's no chance of proving you wrong.

[Mastertech]

It does not! Do you understand TCP/IP? Do you realize that the types of connections it limits aren't... Nevermind, it seems there's no chance of proving you wrong.

I just explained this. Say you are trying to resume 100 seperate downloads (usually from multiple sources). If most of them are offline it will take you alot longer to resume or even show they are offline because you have to wait for it to do only 10 (that are not responding) at a time.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Mastertech

[mugwhump]

Sounds like a little something called a placebo to me. Also sounds like someone trying to make a name for themselves. :whistle:

Currently unpatched, running bittorrent as I post this, and I'm getting download rates of in excess of 250 KB/s. I have tcp/ip errors in my event log, and I could care less. I'm not too terribly concerned about half-open connections being dropped. Every P2P application I've used works just peachy.

Why exactly is Mastertech so adamant about people patching this non-issue, exactly?

[Mastertech]

Simple I don't want any limit hindering my internet connection in any way and that includes limiting half-open connections. This has nothing to do with download rates so please stop bringing that up. I also want people aware that this in no way improves YOUR security.

BTW the people installing this patch are not the problem, it is the average user who doesn't even know about Neowin, which are already patched if they have SP2. So it is a non issue. And for anyone concerned about my "advice" which includes nothing short of installing ALL Windows Security updates, running a firewall and an UPDATED Antivirus program they can relax.

[mugwhump]

Other than P2P download rates, can you give me a scenario where your internet connection is "hindered" by limiting half-open connections? What other type of usage would require that many active connection attempts in that short period of time, that would be adversely affected by being queued?

[Mastertech]

Why do you keep bringing up P2P download rates? I already gave a scenario read my responses.

[mugwhump]

Why don't you just answer my question? You're incredibly vague with your responses and reasoning behind the neccessity for this "patch", other than "if you have errors in your event viewer then I recommend you patch" or "if you run any sort of fileserving software", with no regards whatsoever to recommending to anyone that they should first attempt to find out what application is causing the error, and determining if the software in question even needs this "patch". I think you drastically overestimate the knowledge level of the individuals that peruse this site and will blindly patch thinking it will speed up their kazaa.

Edited July 17, 2005 by mugwhump

[Mastertech]

Vague? I think I made it quite clear this does not affect P2P download rates but it can affect time spent on initializing search and resumed downloads. Why do you care if people patch this anyway?

[mugwhump]

Why do you? :rolleyes:

[Mastertech]

I don't. Can you answer a question or are you like a broken record? First you ask a question I already answered, then you don't read my replies, then you answer questions with more questions. :no:

[jamend]

The patch won't directly affect P2P download speeds, but it will allow a P2P client to search through the list of potential sources faster, which will likely lead to more good sources being found and used.

[mugwhump]

I didn't bother to read all your replies because they seem to be nothing more than half-assed advice such as;

If you are receiving any 4226 errors in your event log I would definitely patch it.

Which is blatanty stupid without first recommending to the person that they attempt to at least discover what application they are using that is creating these errors. It's like taking your car to a mechanic to get an engine knock diagnosed and having them want to immediately sell you a new engine without opening the hood. I've asked what applications or scenarios would cause this error, and you tell me to backtrack your responses. I see several times you say that this won't effect download speeds in P2P applications, but you're giving the advice to people having errors from running P2P applications. It simply doesn't make sense, and you seem hell-bent on hammering home that this patch is the best thing since sliced bread, when for the vast majority of users out there, it's completely wortheless. Nothing more than a shoddy placebo. You seem to care far more about this issue since you've consistently argued it's validity for going on 16 pages now, and I'm just curious as to WHY you care so much?

I could honestly care less if people patch or not, but I also must admit I don't enjoy people that might not know better being scammed.

[Mastertech]

The patch can improve search and resume speeds. Not the speed at which it downloads the resumed file but the speed at which it restablishes the connection or tells you the source is not available, if you have over ten sources, which is quite common with P2P. I will have to check exactly which P2P applications but I have seen them put limits to below ten for simultaneous connection attempts. With this patch you can increase that.

Here is how it can actually improve speeds indirectly. Say you have a P2P app attempting to find a file or resume a download, if you can connect to the source before someone else, you download the file and are not qued on their end. The more sources you download from the faster the download. Placebo my ass.

The fact I am making such a big deal out of this is certain people are trying to scare others into not patching based on false security concerns. The patch does nothing to improve YOUR security.

[John Veteran]

The fact I am making such a big deal out of this is certain people are trying to scare others into not patching based on false security concerns. The patch does nothing to improve YOUR security.

586226145[/snapback]

How about I'm trying to tell people that hex-editing files is a bad idea because you're never really sure what you're changing; and if you make a wrong change, you won't know what could/will happen.

[Mastertech]

Which is why should always use a program to do it for you, written by someone who does know what they are changing.

[ChopSuey]

This thread reminds me of a soap opera.

Everyone has different opinions on the TCP/IP patch. If someone wants to use it, then let them. It's up to the user to decide what to do. If the user thinks their connection has improved with the patch, then let them think that. Do I use the patch? No. But, I also don't use P2P programs.

No point in wasting Neowin's hard drive space on a discussion which is obviously going nowhere.

[John Veteran]

Agreed. This topic has been beaten to death.

Unpinned