• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows XP SP2 TCP/IP "Patch"

Recommended Posts

Slimy    14
That's exactly the idea, and it doesn't hurt your connections/speed at all anyway, so why mess with it? :wacko:

585440129[/snapback]

because it does affect your connections/speed :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malisk    142
I'm not really getting this.. if the patch doesn't work according to you guys, how come there are so many ppl stating that it does and I've even seen it work in front of my very own eyes, just for p2p tho? Sites with the patch say that it only improves p2p and I've seen it do exactly that.. how come it seems to work if it is supposedly just a fake?

585257821[/snapback]

I've been sharing at 500 KiloBYTES up/down so clearly nothing this patch does to your speed kicks in BEFORE that. Therefore I hardly think it does anything to your SPEED at all. That also only makes sense since the speed comes from established connections, which XP SP2 sets no limit for.

Maybe it seems to work for you for the same reason a new version of a software might "seem" to be faster, although it either isn't (placebo effect) or because of coincidences.

Edited by Jugalator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0

Again, this has nothing to do with connection speeds, rather potential slowdowns during search queries in P2P apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
Again, this has nothing to do with connection speeds, rather potential slowdowns during search queries in P2P apps.

585462870[/snapback]

That's only because the P2P app is sending search queries to virtually every server it knows of, whether it's connected or not. Even if the server is offline or doesn't exist anymore, the app will still send the query (which is stupid, wasting bandwidth and time for everyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0
That's only because the P2P app is sending search queries to virtually every server it knows of, whether it's connected or not. Even if the server is offline or doesn't exist anymore, the app will still send the query (which is stupid, wasting bandwidth and time for everyone).

Maybe but this is what type of performance improvement you can expect to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vhrock    0

I get a few 4226 errors in my event log even when not running p2p applications. One thing I noticed that sometimes triggers it is when you use Yahoo video search. Why Yahoo search sometimes triggers it I have no idea. I have scanned my PC with Norton AV, A-Squared (A2), and Trend Micro House Call and it's clean. I have also scanned for spyware with Ad-Aware, Spy Sweeper and MS anti spyware, and they all show it as clean. I'm running behind a router and use Sygate 5.6 and never has it popped up with anything strange asking to access the net. When I do get the 4226 errors I look at the time of the error and then check my Sygate logs, for some reason the one .exe that accessed the net that is sometimes near the time of the error is (NT Kernel&System) ntoskrnl.exe which is a legit Windows file. Why that would trigger a 4226 is a mystery to me. And as I mentioned before Yahoo video search will at times cause it, I will see Yahoo's IP listed near the time of 4226 errors also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3
I get a few 4226 errors in my event log even when not running p2p applications. One thing I noticed that sometimes triggers it is when you use Yahoo video search. Why Yahoo search sometimes triggers it I have no idea. I have scanned my PC with Norton AV, A-Squared (A2), and Trend Micro House Call and it's clean. I have also scanned for spyware with Ad-Aware, Spy Sweeper and MS anti spyware, and they all show it as clean. I'm running behind a router and use Sygate 5.6 and never has it popped up with anything strange asking to access the net. When I do get the 4226 errors I look at the time of the error and then check my Sygate logs, for some reason the one .exe that accessed the net that is sometimes near the time of the error is (NT Kernel&System) ntoskrnl.exe which is a legit Windows file. Why that would trigger a 4226 is a mystery to me. And as I mentioned before Yahoo video search will at times cause it, I will see Yahoo's IP listed near the time of 4226 errors also.

585484495[/snapback]

Interesting. Do you see any speed issues when this happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vhrock    0
Interesting.? Do you see any speed issues when this happens?

585484913[/snapback]

No, no at least any that I notice. Also, if I was to go from one page to another quickly and viewed more than ten pages in rapid sequence, which I sometimes do, it will sometimes trigger a 4226. I don't think it's always due to P2P or viruses. I know my system is clean, I don't worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr_runnfool    0
Also, if I was to go from one page to another quickly and viewed more than ten pages in rapid sequence, which I sometimes do, it will sometimes trigger a 4226.

585489333[/snapback]

that's what I see -- when my p2p prog is hopping and I'm surfing -- usually gets me if I submit a form while another page is still refreshing (with pics or something). the form submit request hangs (never gets out) and I'm left sitting there looking stupid. have to retry in a few secs when things time out / settle down within IE.

i'm glad azureus can limit this ... without that it'd be hitting this wall all the time. it used to love to do *everything* simultaneously! for now I set it to 5 and I still have plenty of simultaneous connections left to initiate for surfing.

woo hoo

JR :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3
that's what I see -- when my p2p prog is hopping and I'm surfing -- usually gets me if I submit a form while another page is still refreshing (with pics or something).  the form submit request hangs (never gets out) and I'm left sitting there looking stupid.  have to retry in a few secs when things time out / settle down within IE.

i'm glad azureus can limit this ... without that it'd be hitting this wall all the time.  it used to love to do *everything* simultaneously!  for now I set it to 5 and I still have plenty of simultaneous connections left to initiate for surfing.

woo hoo

JR :yes:

585504538[/snapback]

Did you see 4226 errors in the event log?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0

Just save yourself the hassle and remove the cap, I do on every machine I build or work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jr_runnfool    0

:rofl:

Did you see 4226 errors in the event log?

585506742[/snapback]

yes, that's how I knew there was an issue. I'm mostly OK now keeping Azureus limited, and I'm sure it doesn't really impact my speed.

as others have said, I wish MS would give us the choice on this one -- make it an option tweakable in the registry. oh well...

JR

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0

You have a choice install the Patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Just save yourself the hassle and remove the cap, I do on every machine I build or work on.

585509024[/snapback]

That's sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0
That's sad.

What is sad is trying to scare people into thinking this cap improves their security. When in reality your only worried about yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7

What is sad is people thinking they're smarter than networking experts who are paid to be among the best in their field...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiveMasterT    0

after i upgraded to sp2, one of my port scanning utilites would no longer work. After installing the patch, they did.

sure it may help with bittorrent and other p2p apps, but the average user doenst need it. if it slows down the spread of viruses and only the people who need the patch use it, then we are all set. when the day comes that people start charging for the patch and selling it as something to improve download speeds or something, thats when there is a problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
after i upgraded to sp2, one of my port scanning utilites would no longer work.  After installing the patch, they did.

sure it may help with bittorrent and other p2p apps, but the average user doenst need it.  if it slows down the spread of viruses and only the people who need the patch use it, then we are all set.  when the day comes that people start charging for the patch and selling it as something to improve download speeds or something, thats when there is a problem...

585521948[/snapback]

Increase the timeout delay and your scanners will work just fine.

And you have it backwards, the average user does need it. It's the advanced users who think they need those extra incomplete connections (in which 90%+ of situations, they don't need them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PseudoRandomDragon    0
We messed with it because we wanted to annoy you, ok?

585442049[/snapback]

:D

You guys need to just...stop. Really. It's one stupid file, that change wont make or break any of us and if it bothers you that much adjusting it is so simple it isn't worth your time to complain about it. That is what's sad. What's next? Are you guys gunna bicker about the UXTheme patch? And does this topic really need to be pinned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chavo    1

Dudezorz, I installed this patch on my tcp/ip stizack and I like downloaded the whole internet in about 3 seconds.

Now I don't know how to put the internet back :(

Man, sometimes I hate bein such a 1333e777 727111 hax04.

But the again you gotta stick it the man at M$ for stealing our Kbps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0
What is sad is people thinking they're smarter than networking experts who are paid to be among the best in their field...

585520027[/snapback]

No sadness is scaring the public so you "think" YOU are more secure. This setting does nothing for MY security and can cause ME networking slowdowns. So I will uncap it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
No sadness is scaring the public so you "think" YOU are more secure. This setting does nothing for MY security and can cause ME networking slowdowns. So I will uncap it.

585536054[/snapback]

That's not what they're saying. It's better for the Internet community as a whole.

There's no benefit to me sitting in my car waiting for a red light to change to green when no one else is on the intersecting street, but I do it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0

If you are concerned about the internet as a whole their are much much greater things to occupy your time, such as spam and spyware or just making sure people have AV to begin with.

You wait at the light because it is the law, not for any "greater" good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3
:D

You guys need to just...stop. Really. It's one stupid file, that change wont make or break any of us and if it bothers you that much adjusting it is so simple it isn't worth your time to complain about it. That is what's sad. What's next? Are you guys gunna bicker about the UXTheme patch? And does this topic really need to be pinned?

585535807[/snapback]

This thread was created because many people don't understand what this patch does not to start a argument. I have actually learned a lot about the patch and the restriction reading the responses in this thread.

The UXTheme patch does not impose a "security risk".

If you are concerned about the internet as a whole their are much much greater things to occupy your time, such as spam and spyware or just making sure people have AV to begin with.

You wait at the light because it is the law, not for any "greater" good.

585536089[/snapback]

The funny thing about your statement is this actually can help with the spam problem. A lot of viruses that spread are used a station to send out spam or to attack sites like Microsoft.com so how is this not the greater good of the internet?

Also what would you like Microsoft to do about making sure each person has AV? If they provide it in the US I am sure companies like Norton would be in a uproar and governments would be going after Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastertech    0
The funny thing about your statement is this actually can help with the spam problem. A lot of viruses that spread are used a station to send out spam or to attack sites like Microsoft.com so how is this not the greater good of the internet?

Also what would you like Microsoft to do about making sure each person has AV? If they provide it in the US I am sure companies like Norton would be in a uproar and governments would be going after Microsoft.

After the fact security is a waste of time, virus writers will simply bypass this themselves. All other "bad" worms that would not be written for this are patched in SP2 so this is a complete waste of time.

Microsoft will be releasing it's AntiVirus Program very soon. Getting AV on everyone's machine is the only real solution and what I concentrate on thus part of the reason for the Guide. There is no excuse not to be using AV with free versions available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.