Quicktime on XP sp1

[SingSing]

In order to let the kid play ipod video on the laptop.
I went to apple.com and down load quicktime to instyall on a laptop.
The version on apple.com is now 7.5, and need XP sp2.

I checked my other computer, and found quicktime 7.03 will work happily with XP sp1.

Why can I still download quicktime 7.03 ? or a ipod MP4 player ?

[ßsimian]

install the sp2 and sp3 updates for winXP. they are called security updates for a reason. help protect yourself and everyone else on the net.

[guns1inger]

VLC and The KM Player will probably be able to play then, or you could try Quick Time Alternative.

However I would seriously consider going to SP2 as it was a pretty radical re-build of XP. SP3 is basically just a big security updates roll-up, so if you have been keeping up you get very little that is new. There is really only one reason not to go to XP SP2 . . . . . . . . . and we can't discuss that here.

[rikkitic]

I think replies like the one posted by bsimian are unhelpful and preachy. I for one am very glad to know which recent Quicktime version runs on SP1 since I encountered the same issue. I use SP1 by choice, not out of ignorance, and I don't need anyone passing judgement on my preferences.

I don't feel a need to explain myself but since the issue of community safety was raised, here it is anyway: For internet connectivity I use real OS's like Apple and Linux and those are a lot more secure than any version of XP, however many patches it has. For compatibility I use an unnetworked offline computer running SP1, which I communicate with using a switchable flash drive. Early on I tried upgrading to SP2 and it hosed the system, forcing a clean re-install, which is why I have chosen to stay with SP1.

My point being when someone asks a real question they deserve a real answer, and there is more than one reason for not upgrading.

[ßsimian]

right. linux and apple are "real" os's. what utter crap. check your facts, they aren't any "safer" than ms os's. only less picked on by hackers because of their dismal usage numbers. apple osX is the easiest of all current os's to hack.

[guns1inger]

I think replies like the one posted by bsimian are unhelpful and preachy. I for one am very glad to know which recent Quicktime version runs on SP1 since I encountered the same issue. I use SP1 by choice, not out of ignorance, and I don't need anyone passing judgement on my preferences.

I don't feel a need to explain myself but since the issue of community safety was raised, here it is anyway: For internet connectivity I use real OS's like Apple and Linux and those are a lot more secure than any version of XP, however many patches it has. For compatibility I use an unnetworked offline computer running SP1, which I communicate with using a switchable flash drive. Early on I tried upgrading to SP2 and it hosed the system, forcing a clean re-install, which is why I have chosen to stay with SP1.

My point being when someone asks a real question they deserve a real answer, and there is more than one reason for not upgrading.

Good thing you don't get all unhelpful and preachy yourself. Just out of curiosity, did you install the huge security updates rolled out by Apple a couple of weeks ago ? Do you regularly install the latest updates and patches to your chosen Linux distro and installed software ?

[MpegEncoder]

My point being when someone asks a real question they deserve a real answer, and there is more than one reason for not upgrading.

Dude, get over yourself.

The correct answer IS TO UPGRADE to SP2 or better yet SP3. Be stubborn if you like, it's your "choice". But SP1 is not even supported any more (Since Sept. 2006 in fact).

[drjtech]

SP3 is basically just a big security updates roll-up, so if you have been keeping up you get very little that is new.

Since the OP is running XP/SP1 he cannot possibly be keeping up to date with security patches. Microsoft dropped security patch support for XP/SP1 long ago.

-drj

[rikkitic]

I can't argue with any of the points you all are making and I wouldn't even try. Essentially, I think you are correct. However, I don't think the arguments really apply to the way I personally use XP (as explained in my previous post) and (as also explained) the one time I did try to upgrade to SP2, I ran into so many problems it wasn't worth my while to pursue the matter further, especially in view of the way I use XP (offline).

Often I see questions posted that seem reasonable but the replies they get are like the ones bsimian made, which don't actually answer the question at all. My point was just that people may have reasons of their own, which may even be good reasons, for doing something a particular way. Just because you don't agree with that or see the sense of it doesn't mean it's not valid.

And just to round things out, yes I'm also sloppy with security updates to all my OS's though so far I've been lucky. In fact, the occasional trojans I have picked up have all only come through Windows and are easy enough to detect and isolate. Naturally no-one is invulnerable but I feel reasonably confident with the security tools and procedures I use. And I stand by my comment about respective OS vulnerabilities. In practical terms, what matters is not how easily a system can be penetrated, but which one attracts the most attention, and we all know the answer to that one.

[JohnnyMalaria]

And just to round things out, yes I'm also sloppy with security updates to all my OS's though so far I've been lucky. In fact, the occasional trojans I have picked up have all only come through Windows and are easy enough to detect and isolate. Naturally no-one is invulnerable but I feel reasonably confident with the security tools and procedures I use. And I stand by my comment about respective OS vulnerabilities. In practical terms, what matters is not how easily a system can be penetrated, but which one attracts the most attention, and we all know the answer to that one.

That's like saying that you practice safe sex with the packet of condoms your bought at a flea market ten years ago.

It has been the same length of time since any of my computers were compromised by any form of malware. Reason: I use good tools and - very importantly - I install every MS security update as soon as they become available. In fact, I enable automatic updates. I'm not spooked by all the big brother scaremongering.

"occasional trojans" & "so far I've been lucky" - oh my.

[ßsimian]

the reply i made wasn't to be mean. it was to get the person his desired result. a working quicktime player. if that also protects the world from another zoombied spam machine then we are all better off for it. if his machine can run sp1 then it can also run sp2 and sp3, as there weren't any additional requirements.

[surfmonkee]

anyone running XP with out SP2 is imo rather foolish

[guns1inger]

People may well believe they have a valid reason not to upgrade. Everybody have a justification for the choices they make. That doesn't mean that a response that says it is time to upgrade is incorrect. Eventually older OS versions aren't supported by the application makers, as well as by the OS maker, and therefore upgrading it the only viable solution, whether you like it or not.

If you are running OS 9 and and the only version of the application you want runs under OS X you have a simple choice - upgrade, or don't use the app. It holds true for any operating system. In this case, Apple only support the current Quicktime under XP SP2 and later.

That said, a quick visit to Apple shows that they do have previous versions available, if you are willing to search for them : http://support.apple.com/kb/index?page=search&src=support_site.kbase&fac=Downloads&q=quicktime

[RLT69]

As others have pointed out on this site, SEVERAL TIMES, security fixes don't always fix the original problem and many times the security fix is worse than the security hole. Many of the security exploits require the user to do "stupid things" for the exploit work. Security comes down to the user.

You do not need to regularly update your computer and in a corporate environment you do not have the luxury to update on a regular basis because you have to make sure the update does not break the applications you are using. Only until you have verified that your applications don't break can you update. If they do break then you have to figure out if there is a fix. In many cases there are not and you have to live with the exploit.

Here's the software/hardware you need to protect yourself:

1. Updated Anti Virus software
2. Firewall
3. Updated Adware detection software.
4. Router with NAT (optional)

Following these actions:

1. Scan files downloaded from the internet - especially from untrusted sources.
2. Never click on button embedded in an email from an untrusted source. Go to the site directly
3. Be very suspicious of sites that need to install an exe to do "something." Even if it's a flash update - go to the site directly.

Bottom line following these security protocals will protect you and you won't need to update your operating system.

That's not to say you shouldn't update your system. But the notion that an un-supported operating system can no longer be used is sheer crap. The simple fact of the matter is there are several unpatched security exploits. Security updates are only available AFTER the exploit is found. Which means you are unprotected until the update is released, assuming it is EVER released.

Security updates are the last line of protection not the first. Following proper security procedures will help reduce your security risk.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The problem with your philosophy is that it requires much manual effort and a knowledge of the vulnerabilities. Downplaying the importance of security updates is, frankly, very bad advice. Especially for typical users performing typical tasks (surfing, downloading etc) who don't know or care to know how to manually prevent becoming compromised. A system is only as strong as its weakest point. Ignoring security updates provides a very weak point indeed. The laisser-faire attitude already shown in this thread rather proves the point.

[TBoneit]

a upgrade from SP1 to SP2 that trashes the system can often times mean that the computer has Malware running. Much of the Malware will reduce security settings for IE. May stop security updates, may disable the taskmanager and Antivirus. I recently worked on a system where the Bogus antvirus malware disbaled the ability to change the wallpaper. Malware oten disables the Security center so it won't pop up and warn you that the firewall is turned off or that the AV is disabled or out of date. Sometimes it disables regedit too. And so on.

Do the updates and help reduce the number of Zombied computers out there. I get enough Spam. One other thought, Power off the computer when done with it. Save your electric bill, If it is off it can't be hacked and even if zombied it is off and not doing anything.

[RLT69]

The problem with your philosophy is that it requires much manual effort and a knowledge of the vulnerabilities.

How does having the following:

1. Updated Anti Virus software
2. Firewall
3. Updated Adware detection software.
4. Router with NAT (optional)

Require manual effort?

At a minimum, you need the above to protect your system. If you don't have the above and all you do is perform security updates, you will be compromised in minutes!

Scanning your email and not clicking on buttons embedded in untrusted email is basic behavior. A security update is not going to stop adware or malware being installed if you click on a button in a malicious email.

Again the end user is the failure point. Even if you download security updates you still need to engage in safe behavior. Security updates only prevent known exploits. Your system is still not secure if you download security updates but engage in unsafe behavior.

[rikkitic]

Good point from tboneit though I can never know if the system was compromised since I had to do a clean reinstall anyway. I bought the computer second-hand and the previous owner's software was still on it. I had my own XP cd but that was SP1. I wasn't all that familiar with XP at the time but I have had the usual bad experiences with Microsoft products and I had also done some reading about upgrade issues when SP2 first became available. On the basis of all this, I decided not to waste my time trying to figure out what the problem was when things went belly-up. Since, as I have already stated here, I wanted the computer to use as a standalone system for running certain specific applications, and had no intention of going online with it, I didn't see the need for a whole lot of security. Instead, I have stuck with SP1, which works fine for my purposes, and adjusted the software I run on it to fit that. Maybe this seems strange to some of you, but it satisfies my requirements perfectly well.

Since the computer is not networked, I don't need to worry about it turning into a zombie. Again, it does NOT have internet access. And I always switch off all my equipment at the end of the evening and always have. I even installed a special switch for that purpose.

OS X I only use occasionally on a laptop in another room. Don't know that much about it, no doubt it's terribly vulnerable but I've never had any issues with it and it's only connected when in use.

The odd trojans I have picked up all came embedded in shady Windows downloads. I didn't say they got loose on my system. The computers I do use for internet connectivity are secure and frequently checked. Apart from the usual anti-malware programs, I also use packet sniffing to monitor what's going through my ports. I don't always keep the virus signature files completely up to date, but I feel I know the signs and I also do thorough maintenance checks from time to time. And when I download anything I'm not completely sure of, it goes first onto the test computer just to see what happens. There are lots of good security tools if you know how to use them.

No doubt I'll get caught out by a rootkit one day, but I don't think my odds are worse than anyone else's and that's why I have backups. Did I mention that I keep all critical private data on the off-line computer only? Works well for me.

Apart from the iBook and some laptops that came with SP2 preinstalled, I have three physical machines with a KVM switch of which two have been partitioned for three OS's each. I'm aware this isn't a typical consumer setup and I didn't mean to suggest that people should be lax about security. I guess the point I was trying to make is just that there are different ways of approaching it. I have found that instead of using a single machine for everything and trying to keep it secure as well, it makes more sense to divide the tasks between different machines, each with its own specialty.

[TBoneit]

I tend to paranoia myself when it comes to malware.

Just because I believe that the malware authors are out to get me does not mean they aren't out to get me.

I remember a customer telling me he never uses Anti virus software because he knows how to use the internet safely. I must have jinxed him when I said sooner or later you'll catch something. less than 2 weeks later he was back looking for anti virus since he'd caught something.

Lets see what I run. AVG8 Internet security. Spybot Search & Destroy, Ad-Aware, SUPERAntiSpyware. The old standby CWS Shredder, Hosts file reader, HiJack This, WindowsDefender. Time to re-up my SpySweeper subscription and others as needed. Some others I don't remeber off of teh top of my head.