Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases SP4 for Windows 2000
Snake_Plisken writes "I checked Windows Update today on a lark and found that Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 has been released." You can read a short CNet article discussing the media player patches as well as one more about
the fixes in SP4.
Any brave souls out there already applied this yet? I am looking at about 100 Win2K boxes that will potentially need this...so anyone with feedback would be greatly appreciated.
And here you can read about the newest security leak which is not patched by this servicepack ;) :)
That guy who analysed the buffer overflow also found a funny easteregg in the buggy dll file.
The Scary part is, I've found Win2000 to be the most stable and reliable Windows ever released. 63,000 defects? I wouldn't doubt it. The part that worries me with how well 2000 works, how many defects do the 9x, XP, and NT versions contain?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Believe it or not, I have two client machines running Windows 2000 with SP3 (integrated) that I left to install overnight last night. I wake up this morning to find that SP4 was released.
So, now I have to make a new integrated install (with SP4) CD for future jobs and then I have to update each machine to SP4 now.
So, no joke here.
This site has a pretty good list of weird MS Support documents.
I'm not looking at the terms of the EULA to confirm this, but I've read that MS Service Packs are cumulative, in that when you install SP4 you are agreeing to install SP3 (along with its EULA). If true, this means that by installing SP4 you are agreeing to the terms of SP3.
Nope, no sig
Except this is what it was: a trojan, but with an all new date, and an all new filename. Someone has just rereleased this baby.
Fortunately, a few things clued me in:
(1) It said it was from Microsoft. But the URL said from a Verizon ad.
(2) It called me a Microsoft Client. I've never felt so humiliated. I do *NIX or Mac.
(3) It claimed to fix ALL the known security flaws in Windows. This one should have been obvious.
(4) It was advertised to work on Win9x, ME, and 2000. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't do a whole lot for Win95 people who haven't upgraded. I could be wrong.
(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]
Anyhow, for those of you who use Windows, be aware [once again, and again and again] that those trojans are not to be run.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Of course, the existence of the bug in the first place never put their customers at risk. What a crock of shite. Reminds me of MS's recent purchase of a virus protection sooftware company.
1. Sell software with security holes
2. Sell protection against those same holes
3. Profit!
The arrogance is astounding.
You can use the handy official Microsoft desktop support lifecycle wizard to see how long they plan to support each desktop OS version. Windows 2000 will be fully supported through 3/31/05, then it will enter "extended support" for two more years (extended=more expensive). After that you're on your own. Win2k server follows basically the same guidelines, except that in the "extended" support period you need to pay for non-security-related hotfixes.
Because XP feels so flashy, childish and dumbed down, I'd either go to Linux or Win2k if my current XP install goes completely ka-boom. 99% of what I've done with XP is make it like 2k, but once that was done I don't see any technical reason to downgrade either.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I am going to play devil's advocate here and not question what constitutes a "fatal bug". (But will point out that your numbers are vague, and probably inaccurate. Also, some distributions are more bugged than others. Red hat, for example ..)
But, Linux distributions also contain thousands more packages than Windows. This is partially because all of what Microsoft has decided to make you pay more for or find from a third party, your Linux distributor has been thoughtful enough to include for you anyway.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Windows fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Windows machine (a Pentium 4/3.2GHz w/8 Megs of RAM) for about 2 hours now while it attempts to copy a 2 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 2 hours. At home, on my Macintosh SE running Mac OS X, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this PC, the same operation would take about 2 seconds. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Internet Explorer will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Photoshop is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various PCs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a PC that has run faster than its Apple II counterpart, despite the Intel's faster chip architecture. My IIe with 64 megs of ram runs faster than this 3.2GHz PC at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the PC is a superior machine.
Windows addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Windows over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Anyone know how badly this breaks terminal services? Damned MS, they never could make a service pack that didn't break terminal servers in some way or other.
You have a very good point. It can be difficult to understand what is going on using things like group policy. I fully agree that writing a script that simply logs into the machine and runs the executable is much more.....understandable. However, once you do learn and understand group policy, it becomes very easy to administer and use it to your benefit.
That said, yes, I know very well what is going on when I use group policy. ( I do it on a daily basis) Troubleshooting failed group policy can be major a pain in the ass, but, like anything, once you've done it a few times, you get better at it. Typically I wouldn't monitor traffic flow, although that would give you a good idea if it was actually downloading the software. There are some tools to troubleshoot GP, gpresult being the first one I use. It's not perfect, but I do trust it.
Also, a windows sysadmin could also just write a script to install the pack, you just wouldn't use ssh to log in to the machine, you would use something like sysinternal's psexec. So, to sum up...yes, I know what it does and I trust it, but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it similar to your method on windows box.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
I hear you somewhat. I have a box that runs Win2k and that is more than decent, even though the computer itself is aging.
But it is easy to say that Microsoft has taken Windows in the wrong direction, and I could see why someone would want to stick to NT4.
There's a saying, "don't mess with perfection". And while I would find it hard to call NT or 95 perfection, it works well in fitting people's needs as to what we expect in an operating environment. Really, don't mess with what works.
NT4 works. It still works today. It still gives a user anything he could ask for, with a few somewhat trivial and superficial exceptions.
The fact is, what most people want and expect in an operating system hasn't changed much since 1995 or 1996. Applications are what have changed, and where pretty much all of the innovation has occurred. If I stuck your average Windows user at an NT4 box, assuming they aren't a total dork, they wouldn't complain that the operating system is "old". They would complain, however, if it didn't have a decent browser, email client, AIM, media player...
This is why Microsoft has been integrating these things. The best advances in Windows since NT4 have been media players, web browsers, and things that look pretty; everything BUT the core OS, almost. They have integrated these things into the core OS because they are in denial of the fact that the OS doesn't NEED to change much at all.
I think this definitely compromises the performance, and indeed any potential for elegance in the design of the system. Microsoft does not want to keep the core OS simple and pure, or make application changes where they belong. I think this has been a horrible move from both a technical and usability standpoint. There is no reason why Windows XP shouldn't look more like NT than it does, both visually, and from a technical standpoint.
There have been updates in the Windows kernel and Windows core libraries that are, without a doubt, beneficial and worthwhile, and offer a lot that NT doesn't. There is no reason that these changes could not have been made in a non-invasive manner. Similarly, Microsoft applications have made improvements. There is no reason that those improvements couldn't have been made without hooking into the core OS. That is probably why many people choose NT4 over Win2k, or Win2k over XP, and wish that they would be updated.
... is somewhat troubling. I am unable to cleanly reboot the box (it just lays there like a lame date), and I had to remove two instances of a file called mobsync.exe in order for my system to regain stability. With this file running, I was unable to run any instances of the explorer (including control panel) and the entire system became unstable. Luckily, I was able to bring up the Task Manager to kill it, and used Find to find/delete the files. The file protection box will pop up, of course, but you can decline to have the files reinstalled.
Just my experience so far...
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
Never update or make a change on Friday or before a holiday. This is a best practice.
As for SP4, I'll wait a few weeks before I upgrade my wife's laptop (on the off chance Microsoft will have to pull it or update it).