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.

Comments

Yes, Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

But when are they going to release a service pack for Windows NT4?

Re:Yes, Yes...

[sakeneko]

But when are they going to release a service pack for Windows NT4?

I think they're at SP6 for that one....

I'm glad they're continuing to support Win2k for now, because I haven't gotten around to switching to Linux or buying a Titanium G4 Powerbook yet. ;>

Re:Yes, Yes...

[bhtooefr]

Aluminum G5, you mean.

Re:Yes, Yes...

[hatrisc]

NT isn't going away, unless they are stopping support of NT 5 (win 2000)

Re:Yes, Yes...

[azcoffeehabit]

I think the service pack for NT4 is called Linux ;)

Re:Yes, Yes...

[mentin]

by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26, @09:29PM (#6308662)
Updates to 2.0.x aren't done by Linus anymore, but they are still done! There are still 2.0.x boxes deployed out there, so if someone finds a bug in an ancient kernel, it's not too late to patch it.

Where do I get them?

I just checked RedHat, and the oldest supported release is 7.1 with the end of life December 31, 2003. And it is based on kernel 2.4. For earlier products (kernels 2.0 and 2.2), they don't even provide security fixes.

Their policy is to provide maintenance for at least 12 months. Microsoft gives you 7 years.

No thanks

[L. VeGas]

I'll wait until it's been ported to Linux.

Re:No thanks

[djcapelis]

It already has...

It's even included in openBSD by default.

Re:No thanks

[bsharitt]

I was going to start on the port, but I couldn't find to link for the source code.

Re:No thanks

[EvilAlien]

I suppose that means its time for the age-old "Why port if it works in WINE?" question to be raised... wine/winex saved the sanity of many a budding Neverwinter Nights junkie while they waited for Bioware to get around to finishing up the Linux client port.

Re:No thanks

[The J Kid]

No worries

Obligitory complaint...

[Chuck Bucket]

Let's get it outta the way early:

AWWWWW...I just got SP3 installed last night!

CB

Re:Obligitory complaint...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Obligitory complaint...

[milkman_matt]

AWWWWW...I just got SP3 installed last night!

I actually just got it installed in one server that apparently got neglected about 15 minutes ago.. heh

-matt

Re:Obligitory complaint...

[Lennie]

Actually, let's first wait before it get's some testing, then maybe we'll install it and try it and only then, we'll actually start to use it.

Just Curious

[bloxnet]

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.

Re:Just Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading it right now.

In your case, with 100 Win2K boxes, I would suggest installing it on one or two, monitoring the results, and then publishing it incrementally using Software Update Services from a Win2K Server. This at least removes you from the picture and you can go view some porn while it goes off on it's own.

Re:Just Curious

[mr.henry]

I upgraded 5 boxes in my office today to SP4. I skipped the the Windows Update page and used the direct download available from the beast here. I have not had any problems yet.

I know this is slashdot, but I have been very impressed with Win2k. It's fast, stable, and reliable. I've flirted with XP a couple times, but I always end up reinstalling 2k.

Re:Just Curious

[lovemayo]

Applied it earlier today... My system is still running :) haven't noticed any differences yet.

Re:Just Curious

[woozlewuzzle]

Since OS News had this yesterday (as did Arstechnica) I've seen a number of people installed without issue. I've done 2 servers in my lab (both were up to date on all hotfixes already) and they seem fine so far. I heard rumors (fud? who knows) that some systems that were only at SP2 had problems after upgrading, but I wouldn't think that is a widespread problem right now. Test, retest then deploy

Re:Just Curious

[winmonster]

Well my laptop and two of my desktops at work haven't crapped out since installing it this morning. I just got done streamlining CDs for Pro, Server and Advanced server. Something to watch out for - SP4 re-enabled the Background Intelligent Transfer and Automatic Update Services. It doesn't re-enable Automatic Updates if you had that disabled, though.

BTW, the md5sums for the service pack linked to by OSNews (I assume it's the same one that Neowin found.) and the one on the official Microsoft download page are identical.

Re:Just Curious

[mrpuffypants]

As much as I hate to say it, 2k is a really good operating system. XP uses the same kernel as 2k and it seems to run pretty well too. If it had a bit more finish to it then I probably would have stuck with it rather than going up to XP.

Re:Just Curious

[Telastyn]

Indeed. It's probably the best because it's the version of windows that's closest to being 'just an OS'.

Re:Just Curious

[Slack0ff]

im about to roll it out in the office... looks like it is just all the other security patches rolled into one.

Re:Just Curious

[Traa]

same here. No problems with SP4. I had to reboot my developer machine after 3 weeks of uninterupted uptime (installed a new Adaptec USB2 driver 3 weeks back). That is quite a step up from a few years back when many a debug session would end in a reboot. For me windows 2000 has been rock solid and a pleasant experience. I might still pick Linux over 2000, but my work leaves me little choice (and I really don't care that much).

Re:Just Curious

[pnix]

I sure hope they don't pull on me what they did last fall with the WM_TIMER update to NT4. 1/3 of our company ran on it at the time, and the "update" caused every machine to randomly crash after just a few hours uptime. I'll most definitely be waiting a few weeks to a month before I put anything on, let alone a SP!

Re:Just Curious

[deadsaijinx*]

probably because you failed to maintain either the OS or the computer itself. Given proper maintainence, and enough resources in the computer, you should RARELY experience a crash with 2K or XP

Re:Just Curious

[anotherone]

I'd wager that you've got a problem with your computer, or your current windows setup. A good installation of Windows 2000 should get a few days of uptime as the absolute minimum.

Re:Just Curious

[Bohiti]

Software Update Services can't push Service Packs, just individual patches.

Re:Just Curious

[timmyf2371]

Do you know what caused the crashes?

While running W2k the only crashes I have had were directly the result of poor quality hardware I had installed.

Re:Just Curious

[Mostly a lurker]

To be fair, W2K is a decent operating system and W2K3 is better. That said, its vendor is sleasy, deliberately breaks standards and (in my view) will eventually bleed dry anyone who locks themselves into Microsoft. For business, I use Windows a lot. But, I recommend to everyone who will listen that they should position themselves to be able to move to alternatives.

Re:Just Curious

[wo1verin3]

More then just security updates, a lot of little fixes that were previously only available by contacting MS Professional Services

List Of SP4 Fixes

Re:Just Curious

[Artifex]

My only complaint so far is that, after rebooting and logging in for the first time, it took several minutes before it got to the "loading user preferences" pop-up. Much longer than usual for a service pack or patch.

The fact that it doesn't seem to apply until you log in is also important - make sure you log into each machine, afterwards, so that you know it's installed.

Also, don't forget to also apply the (additional) media player 9 series patch. It's actually separate from the main SP4. Luckily, you don't have to reboot afterwards.

Of course, I just ran the end-user version. It's quite possible that my complaints only apply to this version of the SP.

Re:Just Curious

[Cyclometh]

I have 5 Win 2K servers and two Win XP boxes in my home lab, along with three FreeBSD systems. The XP and 2K systems have about the same uptime as the FreeBSD ones.

The only restarts for *any* of my systems in the last two years were for moving, installing new hardware, applying some update or another, or the occasional power supply failure- had two of those in the last year. I've had exactly zero crashes related to software in several years. I get a BSOD on my laptop every now and again, but that comes with the territory of running a debugger.

I routinely get 6 months or more uptime out of my desktop, and more than that for my servers. Any operating system can be made stable if you know what you're doing.

Re:Just Curious

[drunk_as_in_beer]

I know this is slashdot, but I have been very impressed with Win2k. It's fast, stable, and reliable.

I agree that Win2k is good enough for use. But that is only because I have used Win3.x/95/98 before. I've also seen people with WinME installed, 'nuff said.

I guess at the end of day it doesn't matter all that much, as long as the apps you are running work ok.

Re:Just Curious

[servicepack158]

It didn't kill my IIS/Coldfusion Production server. Thank god. Happy killing! :)

Re:Just Curious

[sakeneko]

I know this is slashdot, but I have been very impressed with Win2k. It's fast, stable, and reliable. I've flirted with XP a couple times, but I always end up reinstalling 2k.

Win2k is the first real operating system Microsoft ever put out. Work installed XP on the laptop I use there, but I've stuck with Win2k on the laptop at home. So far, I've had relatively few complaints. (Although I'd have had considerably more complaints if I used Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or Microsoft Media Player -- can you say security*holes*R*us?)

I keep thinking I should install Linux, and keep realizing that I am pretty happy with Win2k, have already paid for it, and see no good reason (except politics) to change. So someday.... :>

Re:Just Curious

[riqnevala]

i used it today for a couple hours, and had three crashes in that time.

It is normal to boot up your computer a couple of times during installation.

..not necessarily "funny", but a joke anyway.

Notice that you are trolled even though you were quite polite.

Re:Just Curious

[JudgeFurious]

At home, I'm dead set against a Microsoft product entering my house. I absolutely hate that company. At work though I don't have much choice and I have to support 17 servers and 250 or so desktops. All of them are running Windows 2000 and I can't complain about it.

It's very solid and I hardly ever see one crash. A bit of hardware here that doesn't play nice or a user who's had a mountain of crap programs get on his computer through his browser (DON'T CLICK THE FUCKING POPUPS YOU MORONS!!!) can kill it but it's mostly a pretty good OS.

Re:Just Curious

[jazman_777]

It's probably the best because it's the version of windows that's closest to being 'just an OS'.

Yeah, the only thing missing is 'vi' and 'emacs' out of the box.

Re:Just Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, but no one can beat how much Finnish there is in dat Linux!

*ducks*

Re:Just Curious

[winmonster]

Actually, I meant ballsplatting, which is the process of integrating my boot into your balls so that you can have two ruptured testicles, like you'd get from squeezing your balls in a vise or somesuch. Anyways, yeah, your right.

Re:Just Curious

[Martin Blank]

PHP pages delivered over IIS that should be gzipped aren't coming up properly for me (PHP 4.3.2). It's compressing them, but IIS isn't sending anything recognizable to the browser as decompressable code. Mozilla delivers gibberish, and IE is prompting to save. Once I save and decompress it, it's the HTML for the page.

Works fine with gzip off, though.

Re:Just Curious

[dasmegabyte]

I think it's telling that even though XP's been out for at least a year, 2000 is still available as an option on new Dells. I asked for it 'special when they ordered my new PC for work.

2000 is, in my opinion, the peak windows OS. It works, plays well with hardware, and doesn't try and mess with the concept of the UI too much. It adds transparency but doesn't mutilate it, and you can turn off the one dumb feature (menu sliding and fading).

XP...well, XP moves shit around on me. Nothing's where I expect it to be. There are all these words...and real estate on menus is sucked up by these complicated sentences that have nothing to do with what I use my computer for.

In short, XP fights my productivity. Every time I try to do something, it slows me down in a way that I only need the first time I do that thing. It's like a tutorial you can't skip past. Whereas Win2k gets things out of my way and only tells me what I need to know. If I need more, it gives me that option.

Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!

I like Office 2000 better than XP as well...2000 was a good year for MS, maybe it's because it was the last cycle before Balmer came in as Lord of the Sith.

Re:Just Curious

[spectecjr]

Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!

Then just switch the control panel into Classic mode as well. It's simple. Look on the left. You have two options - "Switch to Classic View", and when you click that, it gives you "Switch to Category View".

Simple.

Re:Just Curious

[Loki_1929]

"Any operating system can be made stable if you know what you're doing."

Alright, I'll bite - WINDOWS ME! :P

Christ Almighty couldn't make WinME stable with the help of a dozen M$ software engineers and Gates himself. A stable WinME box? Heh. If such an animal existed, up would be down, black would be white, and I'd be able to get a tan.

Re:Just Curious

[dasmegabyte]

Simple? That's two clicks to get what I had before.

Doing more to get the same results is not simple. It's the fucking definition of complex.

Re:Just Curious

[Aliencow]

Once, I had 24days of uptime on Windows 95. That's why I prefer it to Linux, it doesn't take years before you can brag about your uptime !

Re:Just Curious

[nathana]

Quoth dasmegabyte:

Simple? That's two clicks to get what I had before.

Two clicks? Big deal. It remembers your preference anyway, so it's not like you have to go through those motions everytime you open Control Panel.

When I'm on an XP machine, the first thing I do is switch Control Panel to Classic View.

-- Nathan

Re:Just Curious

[KenR]

2000 is, in my opinion, the peak windows OS. It works, plays well with hardware
Unless that hardware is a laptop. XP is much more laptop friendly. Also, if you care about amount of time to boot, XP is a win as well.
"and doesn't try and mess with the concept of the UI too much."
Under XP:

Switch to Classic Theme (Display->Themes)

Turn off Effects (Display->Appearance->Effects)

Get rid of the rest of the visual effects (System->Advanced->Performance Options->Visual Effects.

"Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!"
As another poster mentioned: switch to the old style control panel.

I like Office 2000 better than XP as well
It's faster, it takes less memory... But it's MDI, and it was worth the upgrade to Office XP for me just to get away from Windows 3.1 style MDI windows.

Re:Just Curious

[Jardine]

I wish my electricity would stay on that long. My uptime is based on how often the power goes down. I'm lucky to get two weeks. I guess I could get a UPS, but they don't help for multiple-hour outages.

Re:Just Curious

[Cassius105]

iv had it installed for 24hours now and iv had no problems with it so far

everything is running fine

Re:Just Curious

[xtermz]

I run XP home edition for _months_ on end, on get this, a low end toshiba laptop. This includes going into sleep mode 2-3 times daily. so i resume the same session for weeks and weeks, with hardly any crashes since i've had my laptop...

Re:Just Curious

[spooky_nerd]

I have to agree with this. I used to support Windows ME for Microsoft. We called it "mistake edition". I think everyone at Microsoft would like to pretend ME was just a bad dream. 2K and XP are MUCH better.

Re:Just Curious

[tensai]

"Any operating system can be made stable if you know what you're doing."

Alright, I'll bite - WINDOWS ME! :P

The solution for Windows Me is a little less intuitive. It involves a large hammer and a lot of smashing. After that, not only will your computer will never crash again but you'll feel a lot better too.

Re:Just Curious

[Aadain2001]

Yes! That sums up my feelings perfectly! Once I installed Win2k along time ago I found myself actually liking a MS OS. But after I found Redhat 8.0 and then 9.0, I haven't looked back. But if you have to use a MS OS, I wouldn't use anything but Win2k. XP makes me feel like a preschooler with his MyFirstComputer(tm).

Re:Just Curious

[bev_tech_rob]

ME was kinda like MS Bob, only worse :)

Re:Just Curious

[Cyclometh]

Yeah, that's true. I should have qualified my statement a bit more. I stand corrected. :)

Re:Just Curious

[Cyclometh]

After I moved into a new place, the power was really flaky until I changed a few things around, so I hear where you're coming from there. For some reason my printer seems to have been the culprit, although it's just an inkjet. *shrug* It's working fine now, though.

Re:Just Curious

[Cyclometh]

Sometimes I think MS Bob is the Voldemort of the IT world- "you-know-what" or "the app that must not be named".

This is borne out by the sort of vaguely ill look and flinching exhibited by anyone else when you mention its name. ;-)

Re:Just Curious

[robogun]

I know you're running servers and I'm using 2000 on the desktop, but I can make 2k blow up at will by trying to use certain programs when a network printer is offline. The system will stall for a second when certain programs (including adobe products and openoffice) are started, then crashes violently and dumps the memory (unfortunately, 640mb) to disk and restarts. At least with win98se, the bsod episode only lasts a couple minutes.

Re:Just Curious

[Cyclometh]

I suppose that every OS has its flaws that will cause headaches for individuals looking to do specific things; in my case I have either worked around these issues or haven't run across them- I don't use a networked printer in my home lab, for example (no need for it in a room only about 10 by 20 feet).

When I was getting used to FreeBSD, I could make it detonate pretty much at will, although I've since learned what to do and what not to. It's just a question of learning not only the operating system, but its limitations; they all have their pluses and minuses, one just has to figure out the right mix to accomplish whatever tasks need doing.

Re:Just Curious

[TCM]

Wait, it isn't as easy as

for i in $(ruptime | awk '{ print $1 }')[1]; do ssh $i sp4.exe; done

you say?

Oh wait..

[1] or however you'd compile a list of your hosts. This example works for one subnet only since ruptime/rwhod uses broadcasts blablabla..

Re:Just Curious

[caouchouc]

When I'm on an XP machine the first thing I do is wonder whose office I'm in, 'cause it certainly ain't mine.

Re:Just Curious

[pipingguy]

I installed it this afternoon and it caused repeated system crashes during the start up process. Had to remove it and revert back to W2K SP3.

Re:Just Curious

[kerempuh]

2000 was a good year for MS, maybe it's because it was the last cycle before Balmer came in as Lord of the Sith

You mean that Billy was more suitable for the job. Good point. BTW, that Borg icon is sooo 1999.

Re:Just Curious

[DarkEdgeX]

I just visualized that... and it wasn't pretty.

Re:Just Curious

[Qzukk]

As another poster mentioned: switch to the old style control panel.

I used XP for a while, but I spent 90% of that time switching the theme to classic, the windows to classic, the file manager to classic, the control panel to classic, the start menu to classic, the mouse control to classic, the font to classic, the desktop to classic, the sounds to classic, the...

You get the picture right? I suppose it would have made the little girl who created the UI with their crayons cry if they made it easy to turn all that crap off.

Re:Just Curious

[s88]

Any operating system can be made stable if you know what you're doing.

Yea... I know how to do it too... never install any software that didn't ship with the OS.
Unfortunately that is not why we have Operating Systems. Until MS learns that Windows is an OS and not a cludge factory for all its apps, it will never be stable.

Scott

Re:Just Curious

[reverendslappy]

Applied it to 23 workstations and 10 servers today. No problems. (knocking on wood)

Re:Just Curious

[mnewton32]

There are all these words...and real estate on menus is sucked up by these complicated sentences that have nothing to do with what I use my computer for.

The problem is their target audience. I think it's my mom.

Re:Just Curious

[FCKGW]

It doesn't take years in Linux, either. The Windows guys at work were impressed with my home Linux server's uptime after it had only run for a month.

Re:Just Curious

[nathana]

Touche. :-)

-- Nathan

Re:Just Curious

[anotherone]

Win+Pause -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery... -> untick "Automatically Reboot" and set "Write Debugging Information" to none. This should fix your memory dump problem, and might fix the crash issue. No idea about the network printer thing, are you completely updated?

Re:Just Curious

[SN74S181]

Win2k is the first real operating system Microsoft ever put out.

I'd disagree. Win2k is 'version 3.0' (actually version 4) of the first real operating system Microsoft ever put out.

1) NT 3.1
2) NT 3.51
3) NT 4.0
4) W2K

I remember trying NT 3.1 when it first came out. It wasn't all there. Horrible driver support and no real reason to run it. I stayed away for quite awhile.

Then I was working at a place where I was (component level) troubleshooting new Pentium-based embedded controllers (fresh from the board stuffer, eeek!), where we were sticking a drive with NT 3.51 on the boards and booting it as part of the test. NT 3.51 looked nice, and snappy, because at the time I was languishing in Windows 95. The threading in the GUI just made it so much nicer to use than an old GUI-on-DOS. NT 3.51 had a 'Unix-style' home directory structure. Each user has a home directory (not just a nebulous bunch of chunks of subdirectory under 'My Documents' like these days). In the 3.51 days, lots of Unix types started porting over all the goodies, i.e. the GNU tools started making it over.

In many technical respects NT 4.0 was a step backwards for Microsoft. They shoved in the new GUI model and the days of severe DLL hell began. NT 4.0 looks like a hasty shoveing of the Win95 desktop onto NT. And they screwed up the kernel space by putting graphics functions down at that layer where they did NOT belong.

Just like anything Microsoft, it took them quite a few 'burns' to make their 'real operating system' something anybody would want to use.

I'd correct your comment and say 'Win2k is the first viable version of the first real oparting system Microsoft ever put out.'

And even that might not be true: I never tried it, but I occasionally used to see boxed sets of Microsoft OS/2 1.0 out there in the surplus houses. Anybody ever do anything with it? Was it a 'real' Operating System?? Was it Microsoft's first?

Re:Just Curious

[Zog The Undeniable]

Ballmer could never be a Sith - he doesn't have the midichlorian level. He's more of a Grand Moff (fantasy film sequence: imagine the 1-second clip of Monkey Boy thoughfully fingering his chin just before the proton torpedoes strike Redmond campus)

Re:Just Curious

[Fallen_Knight]

What does office XP use if not MDI? And whats so good about it?

(i've never used it)

Re:Just Curious

[junkgrep]

Boy did that joke totally go over your head.

Re:Just Curious

[nmg196]

> Even "classic" mode is a bear, because the control panel is all munged up. Erg!

Well put the control panel into classic mode too then! Duh! ...and the start menu too if you want. No-ones stopping you. You can make it almost identical to 2K if you want - it's quite easy (which is the whole point of Windows).

Re:Just Curious

[Dr. Evil]

Each doc has its own window. But you can turn that off if it bugs you.

An Office 2000 -> Office XP upgrade didn't make me wretch, but I'm not a heavy Office user.

IMHO it's probably not worth an upgrade if it means that people who receive your document might need to upgrade to work with some new fancy feature.

Re:Just Curious

[Jonsey]

In all honesty, I once had a stable build of WindowsME running on an box.

I was installing IE6, and it was right at the point of finishing removing IE5 and crashed. After I rebooted I had 2 months of uptime, while playing games (mostly half-life based mods). I didn't have a windows explorer, it opened up the same calls as my computer, and displayed a grey area where the directory listing used to be. But damn, it was stable, and amazed a lot of people because of it (mostly me, but still...)

Re:Just Curious

[fshalor]

I've actually completely banished Office 2000 from the systems I manage. It's usually okay on the initial install on win2k machines, but can get disasterously unstable when you try to patch it (the'res three major patches now. ) Xp is also a smaller install for the options we use. And if you don't install the fscking clipguy, it doesn't wig out. And the patches have never given me a problem.

The SCSI issues with XP have made it unusable for most things. And it's too big to install on most of the older machines which run fine with win2k.
The'll be getting SP4 in the next week or so.
Best,

Re:Just Curious

[vldmr_krn]

My WinMe box is stable.

Re:Just Curious

[nyseal]

"...I'd be able to get a tan." You're African American?

Re:Just Curious

[DutchSchultz]

... But it's MDI, and it was worth the upgrade to Office XP for me just to get away from Windows 3.1 style MDI windows.
Nope, it's not MDI. Check again.

Re:Just Curious

[spectecjr]

Nope, it remembers your last choice every time. It's also not at the bottom; it's at the left.

You have used XP, haven't you?

Simon

EULA changes

[jmaatta]

Someone post the diffs between SP3's and SP4's EULAs :)

Re:EULA changes

[Pop n' Fresh]

Actually, they supposedly made changes to SP4's EULA in direct response to the foofaraw over SP3's. I haven't read it yet, but they apparently spell out clearly what they can do to your machine (install updates automatically) and how you can disallow them from doing it, which is by turning off Automatic Updates and the media player automatic codec download thingy.

Re:EULA changes

[Anonymous Coward]

s/all your base are/all of your bases/

Re:EULA changes

[greentree]

yes. for the automatic updates you simply disable the windows service by going to 'adminstrative tools' in the control panel and opening up 'services'. i do it everytime i do a clean install, as well as a few other services... such as "remote registry access" and useless things like that.

Re:EULA changes

[billimad]

I haven't read it yet

Whaaaaat! You gotta read it?

Re:EULA changes

[DailyGrind]

SP3 EULA summary: we own you!
SP4 EULA summary: dear sir/mam, we own you.

Re:EULA changes

[red floyd]

You mean like somebody did here?

Re:EULA changes

[dasmegabyte]

How often do you do clean installs? Just wondering, not making a point or anything. I've had 2k crap out on me once in the past 3 years and I'm 90% sure it was my fault for going three months before rebooting after installing new hardware drivers. I used to reinstall 98 all the time due to memory leaks and that kind of muck.

Re:EULA changes

[greentree]

As for going completely bonkers, which requires having to do a clean install, I can't recall any specific instances. However, what I generally do is use a 4 or 5 gigabyte primary partition for \WINNT and then use the logical/extended partition setup for programs and desktop by using TweakUI to set all the common directories to the non-\WINNT partition. I can then just format the partition with \WINNT on it and do a clean install and not lose any important data. A lot of the ISOs of win2k pro and advanced server are often corrupt in that they are missing a few needed files. One of 2k I had was missing a mouse driver file which made it impossible to using any mouse no matter what type of mouse or driver you used. I never wrote down the file (which was reported missing during the install) so I just borrowed a friends copy of what so far has appeared to be a good copy of 2k. Windows 98 is a true disaster, in my opinion, and prone to get cluttered and cluttered the more you use it. Don't even bother with 98(se) anymore unless you really have to for some particular reason. It's no longer supported at all by ms update and stuff. There was one instance with 2k advanced server once where I kept on noticing delays and slow downs when using it as if the cpu was being randomly hogged completely for a few seconds. I discovered that some sort of trojany thing had been installed onto it. By looking in \winnt\system and \winnt\system32 (btw, there are a lot of useful programs in those two folders) i found that many windows system files had been overwritten and mIRC would run and connect completely in the background. It was very strange. I found several bat files. Using a program (which i'd strongly reccomend to you if i could remember what/where it was) I found somewhere in the \WINNT\ dir that allowed me to look at EVERY process running and bring it to front focus. I brought mIRC to the front to find it connected to some room or whatever with a bunch of users in it also. Nobody was talking or anything. I think all the other people in there were victims just like me. Anyway, more searching I found files with a list of user names and all kinds of weird things. Since all that computer did was run delegate for the rest of my computers I decided to just to completely reformat the entire hard drive. The only other problem I've had is with login passwords on 2k pro. when i am at the login prompt it tells me my password is wrong for logging in as admin (i renamed it from "administrator") . I have no clue why. i didn't change my password or anything. I think i'll probably just install windows 2k pro on that partition again in \Winnt2\ and use that. i don't have much software to reinstall, either. what was your crash like with the drivers and waiting three months?

Re:EULA changes

[Lennie]

Maybe he installs new machines, as (part of )his job.

Re:EULA changes

[grolschie]

Does Win2K come with the 'diff' command? If not, ask a *nix user to do it.

Re:EULA changes

[|<amikaze]

such as "remote registry access" and useless things like that.

Hey, just because YOU don't find it useful, doesn't mean I don't find it useful :D

Re:EULA changes

[Ryosen]

>> Using a program (which i'd strongly reccomend to you if i could remember what/where it was)

Fortunately, I can. ;)

One tool that does what you describe is called "Process Explorer" and is available from SysInternals. Free.

The trojan that you found sounds like one of the many mIRC replacement programs that are used for botting and DDoS attacks. We found one on our network and were able to trace it's introduction back to a website. It used an exploit in IE that allows the installation of applications without the approval or awareness of the user.

Just one more reason to not allow the use of IE in the workplace...

Re:EULA changes

[SonicBurst]

look for a utility called windiff. I think it's actually part of the resource kit, but I can't remember exactly.

Re:EULA changes

[grolschie]

That reminds me, I heard/read somewhere that the new 2003 Server comes with a Unix server of some description. Is that true?

Re:EULA changes

[SN74S181]

Have they merged in the Interix functionality?

I have been wondering if that particular red-headed stepchild product was going to be mothballed.

Re:EULA changes

[makapuf]

s/all your base/our bases

Re:EULA changes

[grolschie]

All I know is that they have removed all need of products like Citrix with 2003 Server, as it does high quality remote desktop stuff now for quite a few different platforms. No longer limited to '256 color with no sound' anymore. Yay!

Re:EULA changes

[dirvish]

Here is SP4 EULA:

SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 SERVICE PACK 4

PLEASE READ THIS SUPPLEMENTAL END-USER
LICENSE AGREEMENT ("SUPPLEMENTAL EULA")
CAREFULLY. BY INSTALLING OR USING THE
SOFTWARE THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS SUPPLEMENTAL
EULA, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO
NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND, IF
APPLICABLE, RETURN IT TO THE PLACE OF
PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

THIS SOFTWARE DOES NOT TRANSMIT ANY
PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
FROM YOUR COMPUTER TO MICROSOFT
COMPUTER SYSTEMS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

1. GENERAL

This EULA is a legal agreement between you (either an
individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft"). The accompanying Microsoft software
includes computer software and may include associated
media, printed materials, online or electronic
documentation, and Internet-based services
(collectively, the "Components"). The Components are
provided to update, supplement, or replace existing
functionality of Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional,
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Windows
2000 Advanced Server, and Microsoft Windows 2000
Datacenter Server (the "Software"). Your use of the
Components is subject to the terms and conditions of
the end user license agreement (either from Microsoft
or some other entity) under which you have previously
licensed the Software (the "Software EULA")
and this Supplemental EULA.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF
THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO
INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE COMPONENTS
AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

2. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR USE
OF THE COMPONENTS

a. Installation and Use.
Provided you comply with all applicable license terms and
conditions contained in the Software EULA (which are
hereby incorporated by reference except as set forth
below) and this Supplemental EULA, Microsoft grants
you the right to reproduce, install and use one
copy of the Components on each of your computers
that is running a validly licensed copy of
the Software ("Computers").

b. Reservation of Rights.
The Components are protected by copyright and other
intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft
Corporation or its suppliers own the title, copyright,
and other intellectual property rights in the Components.
All rights not expressly granted to you in this Supplemental
EULA are reserved. The Components are licensed, not sold.

c. Capitalized Terms.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the Software EULA.

3. AUTOMATIC INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.
The Software features described below are enabled by
default to connect via the Internet to Microsoft
computer systems automatically, without separate
notice to you. You consent to the operation
of these features, unless you choose to switch
them off or not use them. Microsoft does not
obtain personally identifiable information
through any of these features. For more
information about these features, please see
your Software documentation or the Microsoft
online support site.

a. Windows Update Features.
Under the Software's default configuration, if you connect
a device to your Computer and the correct device driver is
not available on your Computer, then Windows Update
features on your Computer (including Device Manager
and the Plug & Play CDM Module) automatically attempt
to check Microsoft computer systems via the Internet
for the correct device driver. Having this happen
automat

Re:EULA changes

[Haeleth]

Try 'fc'.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[Mourgos]

Do you mean if you have a pirated version of Win2K the service pack won't install?

Re:Just keep in mind...

[Amon Re]

What do you think we are? a bunch of piraters?

Change Log

[Jack Comics]

Go here for the change log to Windows 2000 Service Pack Four. Some of the changes are quite amusing.

Re:Change Log

[jmaatta]

It's really worth reading through. Here's a sample:

325038: Calendar Type May Change to Japanese Emperor Era When Outlook Runs

Re:Change Log

[greentree]

wow. that's a long list of fixes. i curiously looked at the previous service pack 3 list of fixes and it was also enormous. does this seriously add to the stability of windows 2000 if upgraded to the latest service pack?

Re:Change Log

[Domino]

Who writes these webpages? Did somebody look at the HTML source of this page? Ever heard of a tag?

And then people complain that some browsers can't render so many pages. I really can't blame anybody at KDE that Konqueror can't render this crap. Some web designers lack a brain. Sorry for this off-topic rant, but I really would like to read this without having to launch a different browser.

Re:Change Log

[IthnkImParanoid]

Pfff, I viewed it in IE (not my choice, attending an oracle class right now), and it looks like crap. One can only assume this web master never even looked at his page in any browser.

I don't know what you're looking at, but I'll give $5 to the first person to track down that web master, etch "tr valign=top" into a baseball bat and hammer him over the head with it.

Re:Change Log

[MikeD83]

Here are a couple of the more amusing fixes for the time constrained (read: lazy).

- DHCP Service Uses a Default TTL Value of 900 Seconds
- Unexpected Delay When You Log Off
- Spooler CPU Usage Remains Above 50 Percent If an LPR Port Has a DNS Name That Is Not Valid for the LPD Server
- First Character of Each Line Is Missing When You Print with the Generic Printer Driver
- Computer Displays a Blank Screen When You Resume from an S1 or S3 Power State After You Remove an IEEE 1394 Storage Device
- Windows Critical Update Notification 3.0 May Cause a "Dirty" Shutdown
- A Laptop Computer Has No IP Address After Hibernating
- The "Look In" and "Save As" Boxes in Common Dialog Boxes Are Slow
- The "Eject PC" Command May Not Work Intermittently
- The Computer Hangs If You Call LockWorkstation() While a Screen Saver Is Running
- Performance of Microsoft Commerce Server-based Programs May Degrade Over Time Gee, what a suprise...
- Paged Pool Memory Decreases as You Add RAM
- Multimedia Device Does Not Work After You Update Its Driver
- File Server Stops Responding (Hangs) When You Rename a File
- No Audio on a Web Camera When You Resume from Hibernation
- Computer with Multiple Processors and an AGP Video Adapter Hangs During Startup
- Disk Performance May Degrade Over Time It does?

Re:Change Log

[Anonymous Coward]

Who writes these webpages? Did somebody look at the HTML source of this page? Ever heard of a tag?

What are you takling about? It renders fine on IE 6.0 SP1 with all of the hotfixes when run on Windows XP with the latest service pack and all relevant hotfixes and WHQC certified viedo drivers, Assuming you do not have Mozilla/Netscape, Java, Lotus Notes, any Oracle product, or any software licensed under the GNU public license installed on your computer.

What more could you possibly want?

Re:Change Log

[Xerithane]

This is great:

"Computer Is Unresponsive When Hibernating"

If you click through to the details it means that the computer is freezing when going into hibernation. Not while it is hibernating.

Re:Change Log

[Dr Caleb]

Here's a good one:

Banner Page Always Prints When a Service That Needs to Print to a Novell NetWare Print Queue Prints

The rain in Spain...Err...nevermind.

Re:Change Log

[svallarian]

Here's my favorite: (Under security fixes)
Vulnerability in Terminal Services Licensing May Permit a Malicious User to Generate Additional Client Licenses in Terminal Services Licensing

Ooh! That nasty hacker is going to make you a software pirate!


Steven V.

Re:Change Log

[Ed Avis]

Is there a fix for Microsoft Moron Writing Changelist Has No Idea of Meaningful Usage of Capital Letters?

Oh, wait, Windows is case-insensitive...

Re:Change Log

[kavau]

- The "Eject PC" Command May Not Work Intermittently

It was about time they got the "Eject PC" command to work properly! It's an important feature for those of us who use Win2000 on their fighter jet cockpit computers. I once lost my entire address book because the darn PC wouldn't eject before a crash landing...

Re:Change Log

[Per Wigren]

Is that the list of fixed bugs or new features?

Re:Change Log

[Methlin]

You missed:
313371 Samba becoming too compatible, break it Directory services

</joke>

Re:Change Log

[Ralph Wiggam]

I also like:

One-Hour Delay Occurs During Startup with a USB Keyboard and PS/2 Mouse

I want to know who figured that out.

-B

Re:Change Log

[bazik]

"319313: You May Receive a "Tape Drive Requires Cleaning" Error Message When You Try to Back Up" - Microsoft SP4 Changelog

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds

Re:Change Log

[blackmonday]

Did you see this one?

325039: Turned off the groaning sound when Internet Explorer visited "Slashdot.org".

Re:Change Log

[DragonMagic]

I guess someone didn't read well enough into it to see what it was, since I can't figure out how this got rated 5, Funny.

This bug affects only those who use Japanese Outlook, which would, naturally, use the two different date formats in Japan. The standard BC/AD year format, and the Japanese Emperor Era format. The latter is just the year of the current Emperor's term (the current emperor, Emperor Akihito, was crowned in 1989, making the Emperor Era Year 15).

I guess a little knowledge kills the humor for me.

Re:Change Log

[jkeyes]

It renders fine for me and I'm using Mozilla 1.4 RC3!

Re:Change Log

[anthony_dipierro]

Unexpected Delay When You Log Off

They finally fixed that? Wow, that's probably going to be my number 1 reason to install SP4.

Re:Change Log

[Artifex]

FIX: Multi-Border DVD with More Than 4 GB of Data Not Readable Past First Border

Maybe now I can properly backup my dual-layer DVDs?

Re:Change Log

[calethix]

"- The "Eject PC" Command May Not Work Intermittently"

They fixed it so the Eject PC command does work intermittently?

Re:Change Log

[Some Dumbass...]

I guess a little knowledge kills the humor for me.

Correct. You see, jokes are primarily supposed to be funny. Realism isn't a priority.

For example, in reality, all your base are not in fact belong to us. In fact, I suspect you are have no base at all. It's a pity, I know, but that are the way it is.

Not that your post wasn't informative, mind you. It was. But you missed the point.

Re:Change Log

[kanotspell]

a few more -Error Message "An Attempt Was Made to Remember a Device That Had Previously Been Remembered" When You Log -A Computer Stops Responding During the Shutdown Process If a Service Does Not Start -Task Scheduler Stops Scheduling Repeating Jobs -A DNS Server May Not Respond to Some DNS Queries -The Spooler Service May Crash Under Stress -List of Security Fixes in Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 (umm ok?!) -Slow Network Performance Occurs When You Select a File on a Share That Uses NTFS -Cannot Connect to a Terminal Server From a Windows-Based Terminal

Re:Change Log

[Mostly a lurker]

They finally fixed that?

They say they finally fixed that. Time will tell. It has not been effecting me much anyway since I just used Group Policy to reduce the delay from 60 seconds down to 5 seconds.

Re:Change Log

[kanotspell]

hows that for poor formatting. jeeze, I'm goona get my geek license revoked.

Re:Change Log

[NTmatter]

My favourite bug (from this given list, of course) would have to be:

322377 Computer Is Unresponsive When Hibernating

Doesn't that seem somehow normal to you?

Re:Change Log

[shadowbearer]

I want to know what his/hers pizza and beer bill was....

SB

Re:Change Log

[shadowbearer]

The really funny part is that Lynx rendered it fine :-)

Microsoft legacy HTML? :-)_

SB
(I'm in the middle of emerge kde in Gentoo; reading slashdot and
playing mp3s on other terminals :-) I love linux :-)

Re:Change Log

[Anonymous DWord]

Probably somebody's mom. You know, the same people who'll watch defrag for an hour and a half so they can get in and play solitaire for the rest of the night.

Re:Change Log

[bhtooefr]

But you DO have software licensed under the GNU public license installed on your computer! It's somewhere in the Windows binaries... MS just won't tell us what it is...

Re:Change Log

[bhtooefr]

- Computer with Multiple Processors and an AGP Video Adapter Hangs During Startup

Yesssss! Now I can get a dual CPU Opteron with a GeForce4! (AGP Opteron boards DO exist, BTW...)

Re:Change Log

[iceborer]

I certainly hope that means they've fixed it so that the "Eject PC" command now works intermittently.

Re:Change Log

[CoolQ]

I especially like this one:
814017 Windows Does Not Detect a SCSI Device After a Surprise Removal
I should hope it doesn't detect a missing device! I guess MS really does intentionally introduce bugs. Soooo typical.

Re:Change Log

[pipingguy]

Is "Eject PC" the same sort of thing as what happens at the beginning of SCTV?

Re:Change Log

[DarkEdgeX]

Or you could skip the neowin link and go directly to Microsoft's support article--

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=327194

Re:Change Log

[superyooser]

Really informative item:

321781: STOP A in nt!KiAttachProcess+0x12 from win32k!PDEVOBJ::UnloadFontFile in Windows 2000

Re:Change Log

[WannaBeGeekGirl]

Unexpected Delay When You Log Off

They finally fixed that? Wow, that's probably going to be my number 1 reason to install SP4.

Yeah, now its an "Expected" Delay When You Log Off.

Oh well, my code isn't perfect either...

WBGG

Re:Change Log

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Ditto here.

When I was searching a fix for this before I kept finding notes explaining that this hotfix/service pack would fix the problem... but they never do! So I don't hold out much hope for SP4 (not tried it yet).

Didn't this bug also exist in NT4?

Re:Change Log

[leapy]

322346 - You Cannot Access Protected Data After You Change Your Password Security built into the OS - dontcha love it!

Re:Change Log

[anthony_dipierro]

Actually it's working great now.

Re:Change Log

[jred]

You laugh, but I'm glad they finally fixed it. I've been getting bitched at about this entirely too much.

Re:Change Log

[EnderWiggin99]

One fixes the other in the next service pack...

Microsoft is /.'ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the Service Pack:

101010100100100010101111010000010101101001111111 00 0101001100100000000001111110101010010101010101...

Re:Microsoft is /.'ed

[EvilSporkMan]

Or at least a uuencoding?

Re:Microsoft is /.'ed

[Puu]

Here's the Service Pack:

10101010010010001010111101000001010110100111111100
0101001100100000000001111110101010010101010101...

I guess the rest was cut away by /.'s lameness filter...

Re:Microsoft is /.'ed

[cdrudge]

Nah. It's just compressed. Here is the decompressor.

On a lark?

[mofochickamo]

I checked Windows Update today on a lark...

Yeah, right! Come out of the closet. You like Microsoft! This guy can't be trusted ;)

Re:On a lark?

[TheRaven64]

He checked it on a lark? Windows 2000 runs on larks now? Wow. Even NetBSD doesn't run on those...

Re:On a lark?

[MrWa]

I found it funny because it sounds like he doesn't check it regularly...considering how often patches come out, his is a box just ripe for hacking in about 6 months...

Security

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:Security

[fishynet]

your wrong! they arent Security Bugs. They are features!

Re:Security

[Pvt_Waldo]

And you can bet that within a few days you'll see a new automatic update that will fix it.

Linux has NO known security holes, right?

Linux has a WONDERFUL system that automatically notifies you when there's an update, downloads it FIRST, before telling you (so you don't have to wait), right?

Sheesh.

The level of bigotry is sickening.

----
Just sign me,

Linux AND Windows user

Re:Security

[Zeriel]

I consider the "downloading without telling me" a bug, rather than a feature.

And thus far, my Red Hat system is functioning fine. Holes get patched within a few days of any advisory.

And if I'm careful about what I install, my 3rd-party software is secure, too, which is something Microsoft doesn't bother about as much.

As usual, it boils down to "what you like in a computer".

Thursday

[agentZ]

Another Microsoft patch? It must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays...

Re:Thursday

[billimad]

Another Microsoft patch? It must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays...

shit! it's thursday? man i need to get outside.

Re:Thursday

[shadowbearer]

Bah. I'm installing Gentoo (emerging kde right now) and surfing
slashdot, playing mp3s (mpg123) and drinking Guiness. Beat that :-)
for masochism.

I'm also listening to Britn^H^H^H^H^H ok, ACDC

SB

Re:Just keep in mind...

[lovemayo]

So what? Everyone should have a valid license, if you own win2k ;) Else, you can get it here anyway

Who else took a double take on that one?

[antis0c]

Slashdot, reporting on a Windows update, without making some kind of wise-crack about it?

Did Microsoft buy OSDN?

Re:Who else took a double take on that one?

[Valiss]

LOL!!1 me too!!11

Re:Who else took a double take on that one?

[Nintendork]

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft buys ad space on OSDN. ;)

-Lucas

Re:Who else took a double take on that one?

[mog]

Yeah, I read it three times looking for the wise-crack. Go figure.

Great

[Znonymous Coward]

Now I can upgrade from Windows 2000, SP3, hot fix 06052003, ntoskernel patch 5.0022, security rollup 05142003. Yea!

Re:Great

[jkeyes]

1. MS Jet 4.0 SP7 required no reboot for me
2. I have every update and some that I'm not even supposed to have yet! (Read: you're supposed to call MS tech support for them but they were posted on websites)
3. Has anyone proven EULA's are court enforcable?

Re:Great

[Znonymous Coward]

1. 1 out of 10,000 thats not good odds.
2. Bull shit! Please submit screen shot of your add remove programs applet.
3. Hasn't Misrosoft proven they own the courts?

In closing, make sure you install _every_ update so M$ can't blame your for slacking whe the next code red or slammer hits.

Re:Great

[jkeyes]

1. Making your own odds, great
2. http://www.chemicalextreme.com/dwd/bsodfree.gif
3 . That's proof now?

Re:Great

[reverendslappy]

In reply to your #2...

HFNETCHK out:

Scanning SLAPPY10 ......
Done scanning SLAPPY10
------
SLAPPY10 (192.168.2.10)
------

* WINDOWS 2000 SP4

Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied

* INTERNET INFORMATION SERVICES 5.0

Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied

* INTERNET EXPLORER 6 SP1

Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied

I've also applied 818043. Can't remember the last time I bluescreened. Same for all my servers at work.

Underinformed zealotry never got anyone anywhere.

Helpful Links

[Davak]

As always, please read before blindly updating...

SP4 FAQ
Lists of fixed bugs

DavaK

Re:Helpful Links

[Realistic_Dragon]

So where is the list of things that they accidentally broke, broke whilst trying to fix other things, or didn't quite fix right?

Or do we have to wait another couple of weeks for that one...

Re:Helpful Links

[dema]

LOL, i like how in the SP4 FAQ the first question answers everything the next 20 questions spend spelling out.

Re:Helpful Links

[anthony_dipierro]

As always, please read before blindly updating...

What do you think this is, Linux?

The scarry part

[pecosdave]

At around the same time, however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack apparently has about 675 bug fixes.

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?

Re:The scarry part

[Jucius Maximus]

"63,000 defects? I wouldn't doubt it."

It would be interesting to know how many of them are 'critical' and how many are lower priority. For example if 90% of those defects were spelling errors, cosmetic errors, errors with really obscure hardware and so on, I would not be frantic about it.

Re:The scarry part

[vasqzr]

The part that worries me with how well 2000 works, how many defects do the 9x, XP, and NT versions contain?


It's not really that 2000 has less bugs, it's how well it handles them. Windows 98 might have more or less bugs, but it crashes way more often.

Not to mention how much more functionality is included in Windows 2000 than Windows 98.

Windows 2000 has finally given Microsoft the "five nines" it needs to compete in the business market. (99.999% uptime)

Re:The scarry part

[rusty0101]

They each contain only one serious defect, and millions of features, some of which do things that you as the serious defect would not expect.

-Rusty

Re:The scarry part

[Anonvmous Coward]

"The Scary part is, I've found Win2000 to be the most stable and reliable Windows ever released. 63,000 defects?"

I wouldn't read too deeply into the 63,000 number of defects figure without considering a few things:

- A defect does not always mean "Will cause Windows BSOD". Some defects are an interpretation of a problem. Fictional example: "Defect #24013: There's a post-it note icon on Internet Explorer 6 that is mileading. It looks like the notes icon in Outlook 2000." A lot of them are probably design considerations.

- 63,000 is a huge number, but you have to remember that Windows runs on a very broad range of machines. Not only that, but there are tons and tons of people running it who are supplying defect reports.

- We each only use a small part of Windows. You'll probably never know if there's a bug in the Win32 API unless you're a programmer.

I wouldn't these types of statistics too seriously. There'll be a day when Linux has that many defects, if it doesn't already. All it takes is complexity.

Re:The scarry part

[pmz]

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?

It's 63,000 known defects. The real number of defects is probably ten times that.

This is what you get when you have several tens of millions of lines of code on your hands. Windows is too big for its own good (mission critical...yeah, right).

Re:The scarry part

[Malc]

IIRC, that list included things like developer comments in the code along the lines of "A better way to do this would be X, but we're going to use this hack instead. We can clean it up later if we have to". Not really a defect. Can anybody clarify if my memory is correct?

If there really were 50 million lines of code, then that's a defect almost every 800 lines. I've worked with developers who can't even write 100 lines of code without introducing a bug.

Re:The scarry part

[NerveGas]

I was able to attend the "Windows NT 5.0 Rapid Deployment Conference" in San Jose. One of the talks given mentioned how they found something along the lines of 4,000 memory leaks in the *drivers alone* for NT4.0. REALLY scary.

steve

Re:The scarry part

[alexo]

At around the same time, however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack apparently has about 675 bug fixes.

Actually, that would be 63K entries in their bug-tracking DB. Those contain a lot of erroneous entries (Problem Between Chair and Keyboard), feature requests, entries regarding test code and false positives generated by their source analysis tools.

See, for example here and here.

Re:The scarry part

[Anonymous Coward]

If slashbot was filled with more software developers and less "power users", people would realize that the more "known defects", the better. If you know about them, you can priortize them, fix them, or defer them.

During the flamewars over this issue, people would post crap like "In all 30 Million LOC of Debian GNU/Linux, there's only 2000 open bugs!" Which only indicates a lack of systematic QA rather than some sort of inate superiority.

Re:The scarry part

[1010011010]

You'll probably never know if there's a bug in the Win32 API unless you're a programmer.

And then you *definitely* know.

Re:The scarry part

[TV-SET]

...but you have to remember that Windows runs on a very broad range of machines...

Please define "broad range". Until than - consider an example listing from the Linux kernel 2.5.73:

[leonid@sn-tower linux-2.5.73]$ ls -1 arch/
alpha
arm
arm26
cris
h8300
i386
ia64
m68k
m68knommu
mips
mips64
parisc
ppc
ppc64
s390
sh
sparc
sparc64
um
v850
x86_64

That I call a "broad range"... Not Windows.

Re:The scarry part

[Anonvmous Coward]

You're talking about processors, I'm talking about general hardware. Linux certainly deserves praise for being portable, however, it has not been run on near as much hardware as Windows has. Few companies make mass-market type PC products for anything but Windows.

Note: I'm not saying Linux won't run on as much stuff as Windows. I'm saying that Windows, because it's the de-facto standard out there, has the most hardware made for it. Sorry to bring it up.

Re:The scarry part

[Minna Kirai]

Windows 2000 has finally given Microsoft the "five nines" it needs to compete in the business market. (99.999% uptime)

To really hit five nines, the software not only must run without crashing or freezing, but also without otherwise being unavailable, such as when rebooting. That means there must not be many OS patches released.

"Five nines" leaves you only 5 minutes 15 seconds of annual downtime (0.001% of a year).

Windows2000 is 2 years old, and has had 4 service packs. So unless each pack was installable with less than 2.6 minutes of downtime, they've lost "five nines".

And in reality, there have been several more critical security patches over those 2 years than there have been service packs. So for computers connected to the internet (thus needing to be secure), Windows2000 cannot possibly have achieved five nines.

I doubt Linux could claim this either. OpenBSD seems to go 3+ years between security holes, so they might attain five nines.

Re:The scarry part

[pHDNgell]

We each only use a small part of Windows.

Some of us smaller than others...

Re:The scarry part

[dasmegabyte]

Well, I guess another difference here is that Windows is one conceptual app does a lot of apps, compared to Linux being a lot of apps that do one thing.

Windows 2000 is, after all, equivalent to the linux kernel, glib, x server, window manager, web server, web browser, etc. ad nauseum. I wouldn't doubt that there are more than 63,000 conceptual functions of Win2k -- not even considering the obscure combinations of these, like opening a print dialog in IE vs opening a print dialog in Paint.

There are a countably infinite number of combinations of these as well. If testers, during their "what wierd shit can we make this OS do" phase, discovered 63,000 obscure bugs but 1,000,000 plus functions worked perfectly, I'd still ship the thing.

After all, all software over ten lines has bugs and implementation decisions. Some of those 63,000 may have never been found by consumers, while thousands more were no doubt discovered on the first day of release. That's how this industry works. Nothing is flawless or bulletproof...the benefit that Linux has is daily releases. Of course, that's if somebody cares enough about your bug to fix it...you might get stuck doing it your damn self.

Re:The scarry part

[krmt]

Just because mass market PC products are made for windows doesn't mean that they won't run Linux just fine. You'd have a very difficult time demonstrating that Windows can run on more hardware configurations than Linux, especially given that Linux supports totally different architectures in addition to x86.

Re:The scarry part

[nachoboy]

"Five nines" leaves you only 5 minutes 15 seconds of annual downtime (0.001% of a year).

I guess if you're running your entire infrastructure off of one measly little server then you only have a little more than 5 minutes a year of downtime for your enterprise.

On the other hand, if you're really in a situation that requires 5 nine's of reliability, you probably know about things like clustering and load balancing, redundant backups, and hot-swapping.

In the end, it's not the uptime of one machine that matters so much as the uptime of the service. Don't confuse the two.

Re:The scarry part

[shepd]

>In the end, it's not the uptime of one machine that matters so much as the uptime of the service. Don't confuse the two.

So, in that case, windows 95 has 100% availability, as long as you patch it fully before deploying it (there are no new patches, ever) and ensure you always have someone ready to hotswap a machine in every 49 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes and 47.296 seconds.

Wow! I guess overheating C64s can also acheive that, considering if you have 3 or 4 on at a time, one's always going to be available in a pinch.

W00T! I love stats!

Re:The scarry part

[Chester K]

There'll be a day when Linux has that many defects, if it doesn't already. All it takes is complexity.

Bugzilla reports that Mozilla alone has 31288 open bug reports right now, and Mozilla is a considerably smaller project than Windows.

A count of bug reports means nothing. The actual bugs themselves are what matters.

Re:The scarry part

[Sentry21]

A defect does not always mean "Will cause Windows BSOD". Some defects are an interpretation of a problem.

Indeed. Some 'defects' (in actuality, entries in the Win2K BTS) aren't defects at all. One of them might be (as a made-up example) 'Outlook Express doesn't have a start-up screen,; maybe we should put one in so that people on slow systems know that it's starting.' or 'Resource ID 456456 in winsock32.dll has typo ('teh instead of the')'.

--Dan

Re:The scarry part

[Minna Kirai]

If there's a security hole, it doesn't just mean you need to patch... there's a time period before the patch arrives when you can be rooted. When that happens the number of redundant boxes doesn't matter- they're all 0wnz3d equally fast.

Re:The scarry part

[toddestan]

Provided it doesn't nuke itself first, that is. We'll have to see if Windows 95 can make it that far. Previous tests have shown it generally craps itself out at about 20-25 days, but right now I have a P100 running Win95C with 47 days 12:14 minutes of uptime. This Saturday that box is GOING DOWN!!!

Re:The scarry part

[Anonvmous Coward]

"A count of bug reports means nothing. The actual bugs themselves are what matters."

It's funny how numbers can startle people, isn't it?

Here's my favorite example: 40% of all sickdays are taken on Mondays and Fridays! Heh. It's funny watching the PHB sit there and think "ppl are lying to get 3-day weekends!"

Re:The scarry part

[Zeriel]

More to the point, the stat you quoted could mean EITHER Debian's QA isn't as good at finding bugs OR Debian has fewer bugs/line of code than Microsoft Win2k.

The data does not support either conculsion.

Re:The scarry part

[pecosdave]

Of course, that's if somebody cares enough about your bug to fix it...you might get stuck doing it your damn self.

At least with Linux, this IS an option.

Next story:

[csmacd]

Slashdot slashdots itself!

>duckhide

Re:Next story:

[bhtooefr]

Well, I've heard that the Hellmouth series did that.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[abh]

I wouldn't call a Service Pack for one of the most popular operating systems just "every patch". Service Packs come out about once a year.

And if you really want to talk about relevance, I'll guarantee you there's far more Win 2000 boxes out there than any of the Free OSes...

Port...

[NecroPuppy]

I checked Windows Update today on a lark...

Quick! Somebody port Linux to a sparrow so we can stay ahead of the curve!

Today songbirds, tomorrow fur bearing mammals! :)

Re:Port...

[Surak]

Of course, the fact that *BSD hasn't been ported to larks, sparrows or any songbirds of any kind at this point just proves that *BSD is, in fact, dying. :)

Re:Port...

[gold23]

Linux already has flightless waterfowl covered, though.

Re:Port...

[SheldonYoung]

Sorry, try again. VA Linux SuperSparrow. Or maybe a

Re:Port...

[daeley]

African or European sparrow? ;)

Re:Port...

[wazzzup]

I think you misunderstood. He was simply sitting on a lark when he checked Windows Update. The idea of porting an operating system to a bird is just plain silly.

Re:Port...

[Aadain2001]

Um, I don't know. /me going flying into chasm.

Re:Port...

[Snake_Plisken]

>> Remind me to drop that word from my vocabulary :)

Re:Port...

[PetoskeyGuy]

Perhaps you mean a swallow. Of course I mean an African Swallow. But no, those are non-migratory... better port Embedded Linux too

great..

[funkmastermike]

Another SP.. means it's time to backup everything "just in case".
Stupid murphy's law. Why can't you be more like moores law? At least we get some benefit from you!

Re:great..

[MeanMF]

Another SP.. means it's time to backup everything "just in case".

It might be a good idea to back up more often than just when a service pack comes out.

Old news.

[sinserve]

Anyone who is subscribed to the WKML knows that this path has been in CVS
for ages. Good news though, Palmer Cox will be maintaining the old versions
for all of you ancient Win98 types.

Can't wait to get my hand on Longhorn, I heard Andrea Billcangeli is working
on a better DRM architecture.

Re:Old news.

[sinserve]

whoami fucking kidding?

anggie ~/papers$ uname -a
Linux anggie 2.4.20 #4 Fri May 16 01:03:31 EST 2003 i686 Slackware

anggie ~/papers$ uptime
16:33:50 up 40 days, 4:14, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.15, 0.05

Die die misses microsoft pie
drove my brower to the web
found the other side
and them good ole boys are sharing hacks and rye
coding hard for the day you will cry

and just in time too...

[hetairoi]

we just got done with testing on sp3 and gave the ok for the techs to install it yesterday.

Well...

[DarkBlackFox]

At least it shows they still offer support for older products, rather than completely abandoning like with 3.1, 95, and 98. Although with the advent of new EULAs, activation, and the repealment of stand-alone IE one must wonder if there will be an SP5, or will it simply say "Oh, I'm sorry, Windows 2000 is now obsolete. Give us $200 and we'll give you XP"

Not trying to troll, but it's happened in the past, and given the circumstances surrounding current versions of Windows and Microsoft's business model, it seems more likely than not.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Windows 2000 is still the latest version of their server OS and for most companies their client OS. Even Microsoft wouldn't make a product obsolete that they are still selling.

Re:Well...

[swordgeek]

What???

3.1 and 95 got "abandoned" on a reasonable schedule. 98 is still supported for another year, but MS has been very clear about what their support structure is on existing products.

Think about this: Win98 came out in (surprise!) 1998, half a decade ago, as a consumer-level OS. It's only now approaching being dropped from the support list. Is that really so bad? (especially since they announced those terms ages ago)

Win2k will be supported until 2007.

Re:Well...

[MeanMF]

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.

Re:Well...

[bhtooefr]

It is NOT the latest server OS. 2003 is.

Re:Well...

[demon]

Win98 has already lapsed from "mainstream" support (i.e., you can download updates/otherwise obtain them for no cost). Their "extended" support requires you to pay them some amount of money. WinME will lapse into "extended" support as of the end of this year. Microsoft is definitely wanting to not have to support the 9x line anymore (not that I can blame them, but...). Win2K will only be supported under "mainstream" support until the end of 2005. Yeah, that's 2 and a half years, but that's not a particularly long lifetime.

Re:Well...

[swordgeek]

First of all, 2005 is five years from release for Win2k, regardless of the fact that it's 2.5 years from right now.

Secondly as I read it, MS will make any patches they create available to the end of the 'self-help support' period, which is eight years. One comment on Win98SE has said that "Online self-help support will continue to be available until at least 30-Jun-2006."

Thirdly, any security patches/hotfixes will be free, available, and supported to EVERYONE using a product which has an extended support life, during that extended life. (i.e. commercial OSes)

Then we look at RedHat. Their consumer OSes get something like a year or 18 months of support, and then are cut off completely. Their commercial OSes get exactly five years of support, no more whatsoever. Sun? They offer support and bugfixes for contract customers two years after last ship date. (and general availability of those patches after they've been developed).

The point is that Microsoft is running along with something that's pretty industry standard, if not a bit above it. There's nothing reprehensible or wrong or devious in this _particular_ behaviour of theirs, and yet because they're Microsoft they get abused for it. There are so many other, better reasons to trash Microsoft that we should give them credit for the few things they get right.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[Andorion]

Just make sure you get the network installation - express installation doesn't download the files, just the installer.

~Berj

Damn

[Kurt Russell]

When Windows 2000 was first launched, Chairman Bill Gates said Microsoft had "come up with breakthrough ways to assure its reliability" and hailed the operating system as the most important product launch since Windows 95. At around the same time, however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs.

WTF! 63,000 bugs.
Sheesh.. Do they have a quality control department?

Re:Damn

[MImeKillEr]

..compared to how many millions of lines of code? 2 million? 200 million?

200 million lines of code and only 63000 bugs? Not too bad a ratio. That's what, 32:1?

Re:Damn

[MImeKillEr]

200 hundred million is 200 followed by 6 zeros (one million =1,000,000)

So, 200,000,000 / 63000 = 3174.6031746031746031746031746032

Or, roughly 1 bug per 3175 lines of code (which actually equates out at 3175 * 63000 to 200,025,000)

Still, decent odds.

Obligitary EULA quote

[Realistic_Dragon]

...the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisments said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighbourhood, 4) and in fact failed entirley to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutley, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be able to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchasers own property would result in the attention of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches. Crowley had been extremley impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: 'Learn, guys.' - T Pratchatt and N Gaiman

And to think that in 1990 that was written as a joke... now it seems like a rather accurate description of reality.

IE

[loconet]

And thus this is that was needed to have IE free windows Bug Fix 810649
</sarcasm>

Re:IE

[I start fires]

This goes along with:

Bug Fix 810649a
Fixes the bug that allows you to choose a broser other than IE to be the default browser.

Oh no! Even numbered Service Pack!

[Zerbey]

We all know what this means, another service pack will be hurried out shortly to fix whatever awful bug this one introduces... :-)

This says a lot

[stinky wizzleteats]

I checked Windows Update today on a lark...

That just says it all right there, doesn't it? Checking the patch levels on the most widely used operating system in the world is considered a flighty, fickle act one does in a moment of insanity.

It's almost enough to make me wish I didn't relate to the sentiment.

At least it's not $129

[klubar]

If this was Apple they give it a dot rev and charge $129 for it.

Re:At least it's not $129

[FueledByRamen]

They (Microsoft) already did that; it's called Windows XP.

Don't believe me? Go look at the version numbers on 2000 and on XP.
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1

Re:At least it's not $129

[styrotech]

If this was Apple they give it a dot rev and charge $129 for it.

Same deal - XP (NT 5.1) is only a dot rev past W2K (NT 5.0).

I think 2003 Server is NT 5.2, but don't quote me on that.

Re:At least it's not $129

[Pulver]

Just checked my dev server and it says "Windows 5.2.3790".

BitTorrent?

[TheDancer]

So when will MS start using bittorrent? I know I should be able to download this faster than 60K/s :-\

Sure they can restrict downloads

[nurb432]

Well they can tell if you have an INVALID license pretty easy.. via pirated serial numbers.

If they restrict downloads to be available only people that have *registered*, that will make it even easier for them.

Then, later on when you have to provide some of the original registration info, it will cut down even further on the ability for some of us to get patches that never register out of desire for privacy. ( eeek ... I hope they don't read this and get any funny ideas )

Re:Sure they can restrict downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Bypassing the Windows 2000 Serial Check

First you want to copy your Windows 2000 setup files from your CD to your hard drive. You have to copy at least the I386 directory (I recommend copying all the files, so you can burn a complete CD later). Now go into the I386 directory you just copied onto your hard drive. Find the setupp.ini file. Right click it, select Properties, and remove the Read-only checkmark. Now open the file to edit it.

Your setupp.ini file should read something like this:

[Pid]
ExtraData=6166656C736263737373B2574A0581
Pid=51873XXX

Replace the 3 X's (generally it'll be three zeros) at the end with "270". It should now read something like this:

[Pid]
ExtraData=6166656C736263737373B2574A0581
Pid=51873270

Thatâ(TM)s it! Now you can now install Windows 2000 without a serial number!

Copied from http://www.thetechguide.com/articles/win2kserial.h tml

It certainly left me scarred

[Vainglorious Coward]

Win2000 [contains] 63,000 defects?

Actually more than that - they counted as high as 65535, but then their bug-reporting software went titsup.

To give them some credit...

[gosand]

Now I know it isn't popular with the kids these days to give credit to MS, but their bug reports are pretty extensive. They contain information about the problem, the cause, and the fix. Click any of the defects listed here to see what I mean.

I hate to say it, but when I read changelogs for many Linux apps (or the kernel), they simply say "Fixed bug in foo.c". That doesn't tell me a whole lot as an end-user.

Re:To give them some credit...

[luugi]

Now I know it isn't popular with the kids these days to give credit to MS, but their bug reports are pretty extensive. They contain information about the problem, the cause, and the fix. Click any of the defects listed here to see what I mean.

I hate to say it, but when I read changelogs for many Linux apps (or the kernel), they simply say "Fixed bug in foo.c". That doesn't tell me a whole lot as an end-user.


It's true. But that's because Linux apps developers don't have to follow a strict template when submitting bug fixes. Some Open Source projects are strict for the code but not the comments.

Re:To give them some credit...

[1010011010]

You can, on the other hand, diff foo.c against its previous version and get MUCH more information than a MSFT bug report will give you about an issue.

Re:To give them some credit...

[davew2040]

Last I checked, many "Linux apps" are being developed by commercial organizations, meaning that the employees therein have to follow the common practices for writing readable code.

"Linux apps" (read: utilities) written by one guy who'll never have to worry about another person looking at the source probably don't have to be commented. Real software projects need proper documentation.

Re:To give them some credit...

[IthnkImParanoid]

I hate to say it, but when I read changelogs for many Linux apps (or the kernel), they simply say "Fixed bug in foo.c". That doesn't tell me a whole lot as an end-user.

Contrast with:

• Access Violation Occurs in Fcachdll.dll
• Access Violation Error Message in Explorer.exe
• An Access Violation Occurs in Rsvpsp.dll

Etc. No one wants to read paragraph-long bug fixes, so whichever fix explanations don't fit in a nice sound byte get summarized down to a completely unhelpful sentence.

Re:To give them some credit...

[IamTheRealMike]

Those "bug reports" aren't extensive at all. They contain an extremely brief description of the problem, followed by a cause if you're lucky (many of them don't have causes apparently) then some boilerplate text which bulks it out.

Obviously open source projects vary. You have to look at the best of breed apps, Linux, XFree, GNOME, KDE, Mozilla etc. These will generally run public bug trackers, which you can query at will to get as much information as you need or desire. It's very handy to have. Short KB "articles" aren't really a replacement.

Re:To give them some credit...

[cmarkn]

That really doesn't give you more information than a good bug report. It tells you precisely *what* was changed, but gives no indication about *why* it was changed, unless there are good comments, that provide the why, which would appear in the bug report.

Re:To give them some credit...

[Doctor O]

You can, on the other hand, diff foo.c against its previous version

Of course I could diff, but it wouldn't tell me *anything*. I'm a sysadmin, not a programmer. I want to know what's fixed, not a summary of code changes even someone fond of the language used and the project itself might not understand.

This point, of course, is completely useless regarding Windows, because the source isn't available anyways, but even on the *BSD and Linux machines we have on our network, I'd never diff even if I *were* a programmer. I'd check the changelog to find out where the respective patch(es) concerns us, test it on an appropriate machine and deploy it if everything still works fine after patching.

This means thorough testing anyway if you're talking mission critical machines. This takes a lot of time. I don't know about your job, but at the company I work at, this pretty much takes up most of our time as management doesn't get what we do and thinks another sysadmin or two would be overkill. Diffing would be completely out of the question. No time. (And I wouldn't care anyway, there's lot of other stuff I'd prefer fixing instead of looking at hacks in detail.)

Re:To give them some credit...

[gosand]

It's true. But that's because Linux apps developers don't have to follow a strict template when submitting bug fixes. Some Open Source projects are strict for the code but not the comments

Who knows if they are strict in their coding? Only other developers.

To extend on my point, which I thought was kind of obvious, maybe Open Source developers should write up their bug fixes with a little more verbage to explain in English (or whatever their native language is) what the problem was and what the fix was.

I see notices here about new kernels being released, and there are links to the Changelogs. I have a bachelors in computer science, and those changelogs mean squat to me. I am betting they don't mean anything to 99% of the people out there either. How many people here do a diff on the code and figure out what changed? Now I know that the kernel is complex, and maybe there is no good way to explain in plain wording what is being fixed. But some of it can, and probably should be explained. Many apps that have a new release just have "bug fixes" listed.

I am not saying Windows does it perfectly, of course there is no way to verify their code actually does what their release notes say it does. But I can at least understand their release notes.

You can be all elitest and say "You are stupid if you can't figure it out", but do you honestly believe that it wouldn't be better if there were descriptions of the problem and the fix, along with the source code? What would be the cost of doing this? A little bit of time? Seems worth it to me.

Re:To give them some credit...

[PetoskeyGuy]

you can get MUCH information - TOO MUCH.

Many people may have worked on foo.c and a few different bugs been fixed in the same file. Having a standard bug reporting tool with a nice format is nice not just for end-users who will never be able to figure out a diff between multiple linux kernel sources, but also to developers.

Bugzilla has a nice format, but I do like MSFT bug reports better - symptoms, reproduce, work arounds, fixed, will not fix. Not how it's fixed, but for that - like you said you can look it up.

Re:To give them some credit...

[rastos1]

80% of fixes that I was interested in and checked out does not have a Cause. All they have is not-that-helpfull Symptoms:

321623 You may receive random Dr. Watson error messages (access violations) in Spoolsv.exe.
323045 You may receive an access violation error message in Explorer.exe, and your computer may restart.
...

I could imagine better descriptions than that too.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[dnoyeb]

service packs do not operate through windows update.

Also, make a backup!

[antdude]

Before upgrading to SP4, make a back up! I will on my workstations. Use a drive image software like Norton Ghost. If SP4 is bad, then restore the image(s). These utilities are life savers. :)

It always amuses me...

[flea69]

Let me start off by saying I am a Linux user and love it, but it always amuses me when Microsoft issue patches, the chuckling that comes from the Linux community...Like Linux never needs patching, in fact Linux is patched ALOT.

We all know the people exploiting security holes and writing virii for Windows computers are Linux users...What would happen if people as skilled as the Linux community turned on Linux...I'll tell you, patches would be released as quickly and with as much fanfare as for Windows.

Is Linux a better OS than Windows..YOU BET, but lets be realistic.....LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!

Re:It always amuses me...

[vadim_t]

Sure, Linux gets patched too. Quite a lot in fact in some distributions (I run Gentoo). But there are some important differences.

1. I can patch Linux myself if needed. No such option with Microsoft. Maybe I can disable the service or firewall it, but that's about it.

2. Fixes for most distributions actually come fast, and don't get lumped into huge "service packs" that take months to come out, and forever to download on a modem (bet at MS they have a nice connection and don't even remember what it's like to have a 56K line). And if a distribution lags, I can just find how the problem was fixed and apply the patch myself.

3. I can decide exactly what to install. In Windows it's either a whole service pack, or nothing at all.

4. There's much less patching, actually. The kernel, and base tools tend to be patched very little. Of course, if you have a 20GB installation you'll see patches quite often, but I don't consider instant messengers and web browsers to be a part of the OS.

5. Patches don't come with EULAs, DRM, or changes in licensing terms.

Re:It always amuses me...

[flea69]

Regardless Linux is patched A LOT (notice the space), so is Windows. ALL operating systems are patched, anyone claiming they have a bulletproof OS is full of shit. It always amuses me when people cannot come up with a valid counter argument, or interesting comment. They just resort to picking apart grammar, as if they have never had a typo appear in anything they have ever written. Especially when they are an anonymous coward.

Re:It always amuses me...

[shadowbearer]

"We all know that the people exploiting security holes and writing
virii for Windows computers are Linux users"

IMHO, that comment right there deserves a flamebait mod.

Come on, man! Do you seriously think that most experienced linux users
would be so incompetent?

"patches would be released as quickly"

Patches for Linux, BSD, etc are released MUCH MORE QUICKLY than
the patches MS provides. Where have you been?

SB

Re:It always amuses me...

[bhtooefr]

QNX, anyone? Only way to bring IT down is buggy HW! (10yr uptimes aren't unheard of on QNX)

Re:It always amuses me...

[bhtooefr]

Of course, I realized, any software outside of the OS maker's control (even in a department that is nearly closed off from the OS department, i.e., Windows and MS Games, which are usually only published by MS) could cause problems. QNX is stable because it uses software that has been tested for as long as 20 years and has been proven to not be buggy. It's also not a consumer OS (but, it can be used as one...)

Re:It always amuses me...

[flea69]

No you come on...IT'S A FACT, not flamebait. Your just as blinded by your beliefs as Apple users...thier stuff is best and they'll hear nothing else. Where have I been? I am a Linux user who lives in the real world and sees MS Windows with the 90%+ of the desktop market. If you honestly don't believe some 14 year old pimple faced geek sitting in front of a SuSe Linux box is the one doing Windows hacking, my question is...where the hell have you been?

Re:It always amuses me...

[shadowbearer]

I see....and that's why the large majority of newer viruses are
written in Visual Basic. Geez, didn't know MS made that for Linux. /sarcasm
Every time I see a virus in my inbox I dump it into a hex editor -
and invariably it was written in VB. Why? Probably because VB is
*easy*.
Give me a break. If you have some source for this "fact" pony it up.

BTW, I use windows, too. I also fix windows machines, and have for
more than 5 years. I've cleaned a heckuva lot of machines.

SB

Re:It always amuses me...

[shadowbearer]

My point was that because a lot of viruses are written in VB, and because windows is by far the more common OS, it's a lot more likely that most virus writers are windows scripties rather than linux users. Writing destructive linux viruses is actually fairly trivial; the problem lies on the social engineering side (most linux users are a little smarter and not likely to get bit).

I still haven't seen any evidence for your claim, so I have to assume it's your opinion only. You are entitled to it, as I am entitled to disagree. At least I can do it a little more politely.

SB

Re:Just keep in mind...

[GlassUser]

FUD plain and simple. I downloaded it today with just an HTTP link. Didn't even have to go through a web site.

Re:The Funniest Fix

[JasonMaggini]

This site has a pretty good list of weird MS Support documents.

Re:The cause of the 1st WMP flaw: Say it with me .

[Theatetus]

Not really, once you remember that the *printf *scanf families have return values.

Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[drew_kime]

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.

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[el-spectre]

Yes, they are cumulative.

My understanding is that the EULA for a later version takes precedence over earlier versions, so SP4 would be the 'rule'

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[56ker]

Has the legal status of EULAs been clarified? 1) You don't sign them and 2) They often contain illegal clauses.....

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[jhunsake]

The updates are cumulative, nothing else. SP4 does not download and install SP3, however it may download and install some updates that were part of SP3.

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[zebs]

And your willing to take MS to court over this are you??

Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[Electrum]

Has the legal status of EULAs been clarified? 1) You don't sign them

They're not enforcable: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[Threni]

>And your willing

And *you`re* willing.... come on - its a simple rule.

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[56ker]

Well if I did - it might just pay for future & past Windows licences - lol.

Re:Remember Service Packs are cumulative

[56ker]

Thanks for the link. However I'm based in the UK - and the laws here are slightly different. Sorry to be picky. Although I did look up the European Software Directive which was very interesting....... I hadn't heard of it before.

Re:The cause of the 1st WMP flaw: Say it with me .

[hetairoi]

um, not to be a M$ apologist, but buffer overflows constitute the majority of all security flaws.....in all software. it's not just Macro$haft. and it's more like 1 out of every 3 security flaws is NOT a buffer overflow.

Re:how long...

[bigman2003]

This is a roll-up. So, this is the only service pack/patch they will need to install. It should speed up an install.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[Jad LaFields]

And considering that many of us are reading this at work (as I am), and that probably quite of few of them use win2k and require you use it (as mine does), I'd say their is *alot* of /.'ers that this will directly affect in the near future.

What is the alternative?

[BoomerSooner]

Win2003 which is 3 months old?

You never move to a new MS Server product until at least SP 1 and usually SP 4-5.

Re:Wait a second

[Anonymous Coward]

I allready migrated my domain server to Windows XP. I can recommend it.

Really? Was it XP Professional or XP Home? I wasn't aware that either version supported operation as a domain controller. Did someone port SAMBA to Windows by any chance?

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[Piquan]

If the whole world would be runned by a central computer, would it's OS be relevant if it only runs on a single box?

Sure it would... whenever it was upgraded, they'd have to take /. down during the upgrade!

Yeah, I got one of those emails too.

[MickLinux]

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.

Re:Yeah, I got one of those emails too.

[swordgeek]

MS is just about to EOSL Win98SE. Currently it's still actively supported.

Also, when is a company like MS going to REALLY get serious about spam? Forget about bloody filters and traps--hunt down these spammers and get them thrown in jail for a century, for fraud and wrongful impersonation! Also, since it's a virus, you could easily throw in a libel (or the corporate equivalent) suit. THAT might instill some spammers with the fear of God.

Re:Yeah, I got one of those emails too.

[goodie3shoes]

Yes, but will this trojan run under Wine?

Re:Yeah, I got one of those emails too.

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

(5) It included an executable. [??? how did that slip past my ISP??? They normally strip executables.]

Ermmmm, is this a common thing for ISP's to do then?

I'm only asking as I'd be a bit unhappy if my email was being censored for me... but I s'pose it makes sense to most non-tech users. Are you able to switch this option off?

Re:how long...

[Repugnant_Shit]

It's true.

Re:how long...

[greentree]

Idiots? not quite

4 reboots + download time (assumming you have broadband) + all the chugging it does after the reboot when windows is starting up and during the pre-reboot install + the time it takes if you want to create an "uninstall" feature for some updates such as service packs + MORE reboots for non-critical (but sometimes very useful) updates

Yeah, right

[PingXao]

MS wasn't happy with the "premature" disclosure on BugTraq of the new IE6 bug.

"Its publication may put our customers at risk or at the very least cause customers needless confusion and apprehension"

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.

Re:Yeah, right

[thebatlab]

I don't think he ever mentioned or even implied this didn't pose a risk. In fact he did say explicitly that it may pose a risk. What he points out I believe is they may have had a chance to review it before the POC code hit the internet for people to toy around with and use the exploit.

Whether that's a correct assessment or not is debatable but don't put words in other peoples mouths. One thing you may want to do is watch The Godfather Pt III. You could learn a few things from Michael. One thing is "Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgement".

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[anshil]

That was a taste of philosophy, dude not a lame excuse.

Why should I need to excuse myself?

Spelling errors suck...

[Dareth]

Anyone else besides me ever see the DHCP Microsoft server when it used to say "Dynamic Hose Configuration Protocol" in an unpatched NT 4 box??

Re:Spelling errors suck...

[Jucius Maximus]

"Anyone else besides me ever see the DHCP Microsoft server when it used to say "Dynamic Hose Configuration Protocol" in an unpatched NT 4 box??"

I actually had to think about that one for a while before I realised what it should have read. The annoying thing about that one is that it's not a typographical error -- it's one where the programmer actually did not know the correct spelling. Things like that make me very angry when they make it into a production product.

But no, I have not seen that error in the wild.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[athakur999]

I think posting news about a MS service pack is alot more relevant than the usual "Mozilla has a new nightly!" posts. I'm sure a fair amount of Slashdotters are system administrators and a discussion on a service pack would be very useful for them.

Re:The cause of the 1st WMP flaw: Say it with me .

[mikerich]

640 kilobytes [of computer memory] ought to be enough for anybody. (Bill Gates 1981)

See once again Bill Gates was right.

If only we'd all been happy with 640kb there would be far fewer places for potential buffer overflows in Microsoft applications.

But, oh no, we insisted on colour and sound and Bob - okay perhaps not that last one; each guzzling Megabytes of RAM, and look where that has led us!

Best wishes,
Mike.

no french package

[anarcat]

Comment?!

There is no service pack for the "french" version of W2K, like there was for the 2nd service pack. I do hope they end up making one or that it doesn't matter which one you install...

I downloaded the 2nd service pack *twice* last time: one time in english (to realise it wouldn't install) and one time in french.

Fun-fun-fun.

Re:no french package

[happylight]

sometimes foreign languages are out a bit later. I waited for the Chinese traditional service pack for XP months after the English one was out.

Re:no french package

[pe1chl]

Actually it is a big shame that there are still language-dependencies in the OS, so that you need a different version of patches for each language.
(same for drivers etc)

We run English versions on the servers (for legacy reasons and because some things just aren't available in all languages), and have Dutch Windows 2000 on the workstations. Joy, joy, joy...

Probably we will have to wait a while for SP4.

Re:no french package

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the French promised to veto any Service Pack in the Security Council!

Re:no french package

[mnewton32]

for those of us in canada, there is the option to purchase a french CD, but i didn't try downloading one.

Re:no french package

[pe1chl]

> If you had bought

We have no choice what we buy. We get Windows as part of the workstation (the Microsoft Tax), it would be foolish to pay the tax and then buy another version and run that...

But it is good to hear that something is being done about it. With Linux, we don't have that problem.
(all the languages are on one set of CDs)

media library exploit

[Eminor]

In a related story, the RIAA said it would be using this exploit to find out who has mp3s on their computer.....

Re:WHO DO YOU THINK FILED THEM ALL, IDIOT

[tarquin_fim_bim]

The same people that failed to find them before releasing the product?

Re:Oh no! Even numbered Service Pack!

[nacturation]

Clearly service packs don't follow the Star Trek rule.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[chia_monkey]

I am!

I rate pi at 3.14159

Re:this thinking annoys me

[MeanMF]

I'm differentiating between "the operating system" and "the services" here; I think IIS is much less stable than is Apache, and Microsoft DNS sucks rocks. But the fundamental Win2K OS itself is as good or better than Linux, and enormously MORE stable as a desktop.

I'm with you on IIS, but just out of curiosity what issues have you had with their DNS server? I haven't had any problems with it, but then again we do have a pretty 'vanilla' configuration.

EULA Website

[rbullo]

I was actually looking for a place to find Microsoft's EULAs online. Does anybody know of such a place? Or should I start my own site?

By the way, could you help me? Please?

Dah!

[jeffkjo1]

Well, there goes my uptime.

Ve Haff Vays...

[bluethundr]

Interestingly enough, the only two languages SP4 appears to be available in, currently, is English and German.

Not to say that Microsoft is authoritarian or anything, but I can just hear Colonel Klink saying it now...

Ve Haff Vays of MAKING YOU UPGRADE!!!

Re:So I guess you can take your

[MeanMF]

MS Windows 2000 and run it on a 64 bit processor?

Why run 2000 when you can run a 64-bit version of XP instead?

USB 2.0

[Vladimir9]

With Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, the software maker added various security and compatibility fixes and provided support for USB (universal serial bus) 2.0 and for wireless Internet connections. Im pretty sure my computer already supports USB 2.0. I want some Hi-Speed USB support instead.

Re:USB 2.0

[node159]

So they provided support for USB v1.1 rebranded as v2.0? Woopdi fucking doo..

Re:Just keep in mind...

[His Nastiness]

Some one please mod this as funny..I laughed so hard snot came out my nose.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[calethix]

"Instead of publishing every minor version release of linux, it also started publishing a story for every patch from microsoft."

don't forget every release candidate of everyone's favorite browser :)
seriously though, I think SP4 for Win2000 is worthy of posting since it's 2003 now and the SP count is only up to 4.

No link for EULA

[gsfprez]

I'm trying to read the EULA before I try to install it. But there does not seem to be any link to read the EULA so that I can decide if i agree to the agreement before i go thru the trouble of downloading it.

Can anyone please just copy/paste the text of the SP4 EULA?

thanks

Re:No link for EULA

[thebatlab]

SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 SERVICE PACK 4

PLEASE READ THIS SUPPLEMENTAL END-USER
LICENSE AGREEMENT ("SUPPLEMENTAL EULA")
CAREFULLY. BY INSTALLING OR USING THE
SOFTWARE THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS SUPPLEMENTAL
EULA, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO
NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND, IF
APPLICABLE, RETURN IT TO THE PLACE OF
PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

THIS SOFTWARE DOES NOT TRANSMIT ANY
PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
FROM YOUR COMPUTER TO MICROSOFT
COMPUTER SYSTEMS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

1. GENERAL

This EULA is a legal agreement between you (either an
individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft"). The accompanying Microsoft software
includes computer software and may include associated
media, printed materials, online or electronic
documentation, and Internet-based services
(collectively, the "Components"). The Components are
provided to update, supplement, or replace existing
functionality of Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional,
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Windows
2000 Advanced Server, and Microsoft Windows 2000
Datacenter Server (the "Software"). Your use of the
Components is subject to the terms and conditions of
the end user license agreement (either from Microsoft
or some other entity) under which you have previously
licensed the Software (the "Software EULA")
and this Supplemental EULA.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF
THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO
INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE COMPONENTS
AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

2. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR USE
OF THE COMPONENTS

a. Installation and Use.
Provided you comply with all applicable license terms and
conditions contained in the Software EULA (which are
hereby incorporated by reference except as set forth
below) and this Supplemental EULA, Microsoft grants
you the right to reproduce, install and use one
copy of the Components on each of your computers
that is running a validly licensed copy of
the Software ("Computers").

b. Reservation of Rights.
The Components are protected by copyright and other
intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft
Corporation or its suppliers own the title, copyright,
and other intellectual property rights in the Components.
All rights not expressly granted to you in this Supplemental
EULA are reserved. The Components are licensed, not sold.

c. Capitalized Terms.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the Software EULA.

3. AUTOMATIC INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.
The Software features described below are enabled by
default to connect via the Internet to Microsoft
computer systems automatically, without separate
notice to you. You consent to the operation
of these features, unless you choose to switch
them off or not use them. Microsoft does not
obtain personally identifiable information
through any of these features. For more
information about these features, please see
your Software documentation or the Microsoft
online support site.

a. Windows Update Features.
Under the Software's default configuration, if you connect
a device to your Computer and the correct device driver is
not available on your Computer, then Windows Update
features on your Computer (including Device Manager
and the Plug & Play CDM Module) automatically attempt
to check Microsoft computer systems via the Internet
for the correct device driver. Having this happen
automatically makes Plug-and-Play

Re:No link for EULA

[bhtooefr]

That's because the US release (which I assume is the only one SP4 runs on) is also allowed to be exported to Canada.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bsharitt]

I think you've confused humor with the common cold.

Re:The cause of the 1st WMP flaw: Say it with me .

[prockcore]

I use linux, and I know for a fact that there aren't any buffer overflows in linu\026\073\065\0121\073\043\032\013

[root@localhost]#

Applied it, no problems at all

[Ride-My-Rocket]

Installed it, no problems thus far. Windows 2000 Advanced Server, but I use it as a personal workstation, not a server. Actually fixed a problem I was having with UserEnv, and my profile not being closed when I logged out of the network or something. SP4 fixed it right away, which was nice.

How can you report a bug to MS?

[Radix37]

Over a year ago I fould an easy to reproduce blue screen crash in windows 2000 caused by debugging an application when a menu is open. I stumbled onto it by accident and found an easy way to reproduce it. I couldn't find a way to contact MS though, I searched everywhere on their page and could only find info about their pay number for support... nothing about submitting detailed bug reports. I haven't checked to see if the bug has been fixed in SP3 yet, let alone SP4. If it hasn't, how could I tell them about it?

What are Background Int. Transfer / Auto-Upd. Svc?

[Ride-My-Rocket]

Where are these items found? I know what Automatic Updates is, but the two items you mentioned aren't anything I've ever worked with before.............

Re:You're the idiot.

[TeddyR]

he may also be using the default MS shipped drivers for his chipset...

I can tell you that there is a HUGE preformance gain when the updated chipset drivers are installed for MANY PCs... [weather its the VIA 4in1's or the Intel INF/Network Card/Disk Acceleration util {IDE choipset driver}] or even the Video card driver....

each one of the above requires a reboot....

I recently installed a system that needed 17 reboots to get everything to the LATEST version and working right... [now to install SP4 on it].....

Re:So when will they stop supporting Win2000?

[cenobita]

Probably not for awhile, given the prices that they're charging for it. The academic license alone runs nearly $400, the 5-client version nearly $700, and the "enterprise", 25-client version is about $2400. Methinks they'll continue to support it until they're able to sway more users from Win2k and Win98.

Then again, they stopped supporting Win98 pretty recently, so who knows? I'm inclined to believe that they'll cease support in late-2004 or mid-2005, so they can push heavier support for 'Longhorn' and Server 2003.

Then again, I don't have plans to support either of them, gaming or no gaming.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[shadowbearer]

Guess we'd have to call you a shortstop, then ;-)

SB

Re:What are Background Int. Transfer / Auto-Upd. S

[winmonster]

They are two services that you can control through the "Computer Management" or "Services" management consoles. Try right clicking on My Computer and selecting "Manage". There should be a whole bunch of things to destroy in there if you have admin rights.

Hibernation fixes

[gad_zuki!]

Thank bob for these. I've been waiting for these for a long while. Hibernate is a real time saver, but I can do with less device problems and without the occasional corrupt MBR when using it.

Interestingly enough, XP does an excellent job at hibernating, but my next laptop will be running OSX. I can't see myself paying out for an XP upgrade. Pretty colors, system restore, and it breaks PGP for only 150-200 dollars? No thanks.

Re:Hibernation fixes

[drinkypoo]

Sure, instead of paying for XP upgrades, now you can pay for MacOSX upgrades. They cost the same amount, the only difference is, you get to feel rosy about using Unix.

28,000 "real" problems

[truthsearch]

Total of 65,000 bugs - estimated 28,000 are âoerealâ problems
> 21,000 âoepostponedâ at time of release (Feb 2000)
> 27,000 âoeunfinished workâ or âoelong-forgotten problemsâ

The original source was a ZDNet article quoting a Microsoft memo. The article is no longer online. I have more related information here.

Funny, I'm the other way around...

[Kjella]

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

Re:Funny, I'm the other way around...

[jpmorgan]

You can turn off the fancy graphics and go back to the Win2K desktop in XP. Of course, this turns XP into a speed-demon in comparison (XP is faster than 2K, you just don't usually notice it under the added bloat). =)

Re:Funny, I'm the other way around...

[fm6]

Besides which, XP crashes a lot less than 2000. Plus it has greatly improved multithreading, which makes a lot of games run better.

If I were choosing purely on the basis of OS quality, Windows would be at the bottom of my list. (Though Linux would not be at the top!) But I'm not allowed to make that choice. There's a lot of Windows software I have to be able to run, and do so without jumping through a lot of comaptibility-layer hoops.

you get 2000 for free with xp pro

[Anonymous Coward]

read the license. you can legally run it.

How about functionality changes?

[steveg]

I've been holding out from applying SP3 from the few Win2k boxes I support for two main reasons.

One is the EULA that came with SP3. It's sounding like that has improved a lot, maybe even enough to quiet those paranoid voices I hear in my head everytime thoughts of Microsoft come around.

But the other big sticking point for me is Microsoft's habit of including functionality 'upgrades' with their fixpacks. DRM support, etc.

Bug fixes are important, but I'd really prefer not to incur any functionality/policy changes along with the bug fixes.

Anyone know how SP4 is with regards to these?

About damn time.

[locutus2k]

After actually taking the time to read all of those fixes (I hope some of them actually work) I'm going to immedatly start testing this for deployment. Contained within that mass of different security issues, are some basic and very important ones that I've had to deal with.

As a rult, aoof the odd service packs are garbage and cause more problems than they fix, but I may actually go from SP 2 to SP 4. Since, again, the rule of thumb is the odd ones are evil and the even ones clean up the mess from the odd ones.

Hopefully I'm not alone in seeing the good in this. That is of course asusming it actually works.

MD5 Sum

[cemysce]

The MD5 sum for W2KSP4_EN.EXE is:
a4ef6c91d418418b287cefe31f958175

The Lark

[zebs]

I checked Windows Update today on a lark

Are you using an update of the Avian Carrier standard? Or is there simply a lack of pidgeons in your area?

If its a new standard, can we see some benchmakrs, and comparisons with the Avain system. Also does it support IPv6?

Thanks

Re:Wait a second

[Genyin]

Whatever you say, troll. Maybe you can also tell me which way the egg rolls off the henhouse when the rooster sitting on top of it lays an egg.

diamond egg square down

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bhtooefr]

I'm downloading it right now on a pirated Windows 2000 Professional install. BTW, I got it off of KaZaA... I already have SP3 on it...

BTW, I would have cracked my legal XP Home CD to work on this one, except XP is too slow and too big for my needs (Luna, anyone?) Besides, there's stuff a Pro version can do that a Home version can't...

Re:Wait a second

[ncc74656]

I allready migrated my domain server to Windows XP. I can recommend it.

Whatever you say, troll.

To the clueless moderator who marked this reply as flamebait:

Windows XP [Home|Professional] is a desktop/workstation OS. It is not a server OS. Unlike WinNT and Win2K, there was never a server version of WinXP. It will not function as a domain controller. (Hell, WinXP Home won't even log into a domain.) There's Windows Server 2003 now, but it's not XP-anything.

Fscking clueless idiot mods...

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[geekoid]

"And if you really want to talk about relevance, I'll guarantee you there's far more Win 2000 boxes out there than any of the Free OSes..."

prove it.

Re:At least MS tries to have working software

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why be an one of the first?

[stinkwinkerton]

I can't for the life of me understand some of the comments I read in response to this article about SysAdmins who are actually INSTALLING this thing right now to a bunch of users without testing!

This isn't a flame against Microsoft, it makes sense to fully test anything like this, be it OSX, Redhat, Windoze, whatever. Those that are deploying without testing are doing SysAdmin's in general a complete disservice-- it makes us all look bad when something goes wrong.

It just doesn't make any sense to me to even consider deploying before it has been out a while and tested. A service pack is a cumulative rolloup of security fixes and bug fixes and occasionally some enhanced features. Yes, there are additional fixes that haven't been distributed yet, but unless you HAVE to install it, you can wait a couple of weeks and test it in production before deploying it to everyone in your company.

Look at Winnt SP3 and SP3a. They released SP3a shortly after 3 because of some problems with the service pack. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the sysadmin who installed it on all my clients to discover all the problems! Crazy!

Re:Why be an one of the first?

[Pvt_Waldo]

> This isn't a flame against Microsoft, it makes
> sense to fully test anything like this, be it OSX,
> Redhat, Windoze, whatever. Those that are
> deploying without testing are doing SysAdmin's in
> general a complete disservice-- it makes us all
> look bad when something goes wrong.

Or look like Chicken Little (aka "The sky is falling!" when it's not) when it ends up it's just fine, which I'd be willing to bet a certain amount of public humiliation that it will be.

Come on people. There's a lot of crappy software out there, but more importantly a lot that's pretty good. And believe it or not, Microsoft actually is one of the companies that creates both kinds. BOTH kinds.

Re:Why be an one of the first?

[stinkwinkerton]

I agree with you completely that most likely it will be fine. And that on my home system running Win2k, I would immediatly install it. My point is that when you are in a business environment, and money is on the line, it is not worth the risk to be an early adopter. People need to test, and there is a difference between being on the cutting edge and bleeding edge. And preferably, a good sysadmin is not going to put user uptime on the line when it is completely unnecessary to do so. I have my job because I calculate risks and choose wisely. For example, I worked with an admin (side note, also an MCSE) that didn't test his deployment and ended up overwriting the NIC card drivers with the OS provided drivers during a service pack upgrade when deploying using SMS. If he would have tested them in the lab 20% of the company wouldn't have had lost network connectivity after SMS forced the service pack update he ran. See my point? A sysadmin deploys software updates. A GOOD sysadmin deploys TESTED software updates.

Re:The cause of the 1st WMP flaw: Say it with me .

[mabinogi]

Yes, but that's _AFTER_ the buffer's been overrun.

snprintf is the one that's needed.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[LoRdTAW]

Yea your downloading it on a pirated copy but can you install it? Also they say it nukes your system once installed, has anyone had this happen to them? I would guess it just brings up a licence key window at startup telling you your key is illegal and to enter a legally obtained key. Let me know if this works!

Re:So I guess you can take your

[mabinogi]

So you're saying that paying Au$500 to upgrade from NT5.0 (W2k), to get to NT 5.1(XP) is OK when Microsoft do it?

BTW, that's XP 2003 with the 64bit support, which is most likely NT5.2, and another payed for dot revision upgrade.

Re:this thinking annoys me

[swillden]

Win2K OS itself is as good or better than Linux, and enormously MORE stable as a desktop.

Eh? My Linux desktop has a current uptime record of 9 months. And that's a development machine. My laptop isn't as good (3 months is the max) but that's because my 2-year old likes to push the power button.

Meanwhile, my wife's Win2K machine rarely manages a whole month without a bluescreen, and typically ends up getting rebooted "because it goes weird" at least weekly.

Those are only my anecdotes, of course, but I expect your statement is also anecdotal.

interesting

[geekoid]

to note:
Windows XP Professional

Product Availability: December 31, 2001

Mainstream Support: December 31, 2001 - December 31, 2006

Extended Support: December 31, 2006 - December 31, 2008
Windows XP Home Edition

Product Availability: December 31, 2001

Mainstream Support: December 31, 2001 - December 31, 2006

Extended Support: Operating systems designed for consumers do not have an Extended phase

they bot end the mainstream spport, but the home version does not have esxtneded support. All other 'consumer' version of window has/had it.

Re:interesting

[MeanMF]

they bot end the mainstream spport, but the home version does not have esxtneded support. All other 'consumer' version of window has/had it.

Before Windows XP "home edition" they've never had an OS that is sold exclusively for use within homes. 2000, ME, 98, 95 and so on were all used both in homes and in businesses. As far as I can tell, you can't get Home Edition on any of their corporate volume pricing plans either. I'm still surprised (it is MS though, so not THAT surprised) that they wouldn't offer extended support for both versions.

I got 2000 free period...

[Dimensio]

I won a free copy of Win2K during a promotional giveaway that Microsoft was running when it was first released. I've never had to pay for a Windows OS in my life, and I never will, and this way I can still run Windows legally.

Re:I got 2000 free period...

[dadragon]

I won a free copy of Win2K during a promotional giveaway that Microsoft was running when it was first released. I've never had to pay for a Windows OS in my life, and I never will, and this way I can still run Windows legally.

My university is part of the MSDN Academic Alliance. I have legal copies of Visual Studio{6.0 Pro, .Net}, Windows {98, 2000, XP}, various servers, MSDN Library from July of 2002, MASM, and some other stuff. All of it is free (as in beer) to Computer Science majors, and some Engineering students.

Re:I got 2000 free period...

[Covener]

You either paid for it in tuition, surcharges, or sacrifices in curriculum.

Re:I got 2000 free period...

[dadragon]

That might seem cool at first, but then it occurred to me: I'd much rather study CS at a school that is Unix-centric.

My school isn't Unix-centric, but it also isn't MS Centric. The two first year programming classes I took were in Java, which could be done on any of the departments workstations, IE: The "NT Lab", the "Open Source Labs" (NetBSD 1.6/i386), the "Penguin Lab" (Linux), The "Ultra Labs" (Sun), etc.

The second year classes are a little different. They are mostly math and theory but there is Java as well as MIPS assembly. Third year is a lot of C, Java, and unix programming. The OS course is done with BSD iirc. Fourth year, well, I don't know about fourth year yet :)

Re:I got 2000 free period...

[dadragon]

Heh, the ironic thing is that I still use cygwin, Mac OS X, and Java for my development. The only reason I have it is to build things like MySQL for windows and such.

Re:I got 2000 free period...

[dadragon]

I don't know, but I got it on CD, as it didn't come with visual studio.

What's the deal with you people?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's the deal with you people?

[SiMac]

For those of you who don't realize it, this post seems to reference this troll, which has been appearing all over the place.

Re:What's the deal with you people?

[klaasvakie]

a Pentium 4/3.2GHz w/8 Megs of RAM

I know I am feeding the troll here, but you could not expect anything to get very far on 8 megs of ram, 8 MEGS!. get a life

Re:What's really scary

[Lennie]

You'd think they'd have all bugs out there by now.

Re:Minor bug in SP4

[TeddyR]

Hmm... I did just installed SP4 on a machine here and it correctly removed the pre SP4 hotfixes... left 1 presp5 hotfix (q818043)

ha!

[twitter]

Here I was thinking someone enjoyed Windows and it's horrid updater. Windows running on a bird makes more sense.

It's like hitting your hand with a hammer. It feels so good when you stop.

Slipstream it!

[balamw]

You can actually make a copy of your 2K CD-ROM and patch it with SP4 so that your fresh reinstall will be 2KSP4 right out of the gate. See here for more info. I've done this with SP2 and SP3 with great success.

Note: This only saves you the one reboot required after SP4. So you will still need to patch IE, WMP, etc... separately if you use them, and incur any reboots their installers require. However, you shoudn't need to reapply SP4 after each of those since it's your base install.

Balam

Re:Slipstream it!

[alienhazard]

true, they did something similar since they didnt want to waste so much time. They made a ghost image and just copied it over the network for each computer

Re:WHO DO YOU THINK FILED THEM ALL, IDIOT

[Lobo93]

Actually, some of us do! At "Redmond Correctional Facility", they code at day and debug at night. Simple, isn't it? And while we're at it, someone should tell those imbecile debuggers never to mix mind-altering drugs with coffee; something tells me they're more conserned with squashing imaginary bugs than the "real" thing.

And BTW, for each of those fucking bugs, a hair has been pulled from my scalp - now that's what I call being a "pragmatist" in a "corporate" world(aka "consultant").

# emerge sync ... sweet....

Re:what a troll.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Come on, how many icons and groupings can a default win2k have wrong? I doubt they have 10,000 help pages."

Doesn't sound like ya know, does it? I don't know how you can leap from an "I doubt" comment to a "this is clearly..." statement.

"This is why Windoze 2000 can't run more than a few days in a row."

Funny, I had a home-made Tivo running Windows 2000 that had an average up-time of 3 months. I've got an NT4 Exchange Server that's been up for 80 days here. We used to have an IIS webserver running gon NT4. It was up for well over 6 months. We never needed to restart it, but we did have to physically move it a couple of times. My desktop machine has been running for about 13 days now. It'd have gone longer but my UPS is flaking out on me. Not bad for a machine that I do 3D animation and play games on.

" Trust your observations to tell you that software simply sucks."

Think I'd be defending 2K if I had 'observed' that the software 'simply sucks'?

"Balderdash! Windows2000 runs on intel 386. Wince runs on ARM. That's it. What do you think this is, free software that's compiled to specific x86 processor families, Motorola, ARM, Alpha, "

A machine is not a processor, it's a complete setup. Never heard of the old "Windows is on 90% of desktops" stastic before?

"you will always be at the mercy of the service patch that requires you to give up hope of privacy."

Actually, if you had read the EULA instead of going by the sensationalized Slashdot version of it, you'd know that the purpose isn't for MS to go sniffin around your machine. The reason it's there is to support a number of the features they added to Windows to deal with the virus problems that have been plaguing it. Go read it.

"Pull your head out of your closed source place please."

I would suggest you do a little thinking on your own instead of repeating all the stuff you've heard on Slashdot that gets modded +5 Insightful.

"Free software has fewer bugs and does more than any dinky windoze distro will ever. "

That's a myth. I'll give the Open Source community credit for responding to bugs in a timely manner, but you need to face facts that Open Source Software is rarely both well designed and bug free. Run a few commercial apps in front of an ordinary user and then run a few free apps in front of an ordinary user, most of the time he or she will be able to tell you which is which. "well, the commercial one seems to be friendlier to me while the free one is confusing to use."

" The complextiy you are thinking of is a legacy of all the dirty tricks M$ used over the years to kill of software rivals. That does not exist in free software and never will. "

Yeah, that's scientific. Heh.

"This is why free software PCs don't have to be turned off until the power fails."

Riiiiiiiight. We'll see how stable your Linux machine gets when games start becoming available. You'll find out just how 'rock-solid' it is then. Linux machines are not being used like Windows machines are, so drawing comparisons like that is not very informative.

Nice bit of Linux propoganda tho. Bucking for a +5 Insightful? :)

Re:this thinking annoys me

[Malor]

C'mon, mods, quit wasting time suppressing ideas that aren't popular. Microsoft, whether you happen to like it or not, does make some software that's pretty good.

This was neither a troll nor a rant, and it should not have been suppressed, particularly not with the noxious 'overrated' mod, which isn't meta-moderated. Whoever did this didn't have the courage of his/her convictions.

Hmph

[Phil the Canuck]

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.

why would they?

[rebelcool]

consider a cost benefit analysis of it. Few home users would pay for fixes. The cost of developing fixes is pretty enormous as it takes away other tasks.

With so little likely return, no sense is spending the resources on it when the next home OS will have long been out already.

Home users upgrade much more often than business users.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bhtooefr]

Running SP4 as I type now...

I remember a lot of nay-sayers said XP SP1 wouldn't work on a pirated install. (We didn't realize that our sysadmin used pirated copies of XP, but...) SP1 worked fine on XP Pro Pirated Edition.

Actually, it's just as easy..

[SonicBurst]

..with Active Directory's group policy. Just create a GPO, set software installation to assign and point it at update.msi (the extracted flavor of win2ksp4.exe). Link the GPO at (site | domain | OU, take your pick) and go away. It'll get installed.

Re:Actually, it's just as easy..

[TCM]

Hmm, maybe it's just me because I'm not into Windows really, but I get the idea that it may be easy to do but is it easy to understand? You know, the kind of understanding that control freaks like. With my less-sophisticated example I know exactly what connection gets made where, what it does etc.

Link the GPO at (site | domain | OU, take your pick) and go away. It'll get installed.

Do you actually do this stuff on a daily basis? Do you feel you fully understand the process as such to trust it? Could you actually monitor the network traffic between the boxes and tell which packet flows from there to there for this and that reason? I know I actually tried it with SMB. Maybe I'm too dumb to grasp it but for me there was too much going on to keep a good feeling of real understanding. I always end up trying to "shield" these things using a BSD box. Too much "click here and there and eventually it'll work but if it doesn't.. who knows why it doesn't, try rebooting".

That said, I don't really have a lot of experience with these processes (AD, SMB etc.) but that's not because I haven't tried. However, I do fully understand what's going on when I type the example command I gave.

Sorry, now I forgot what I wanted to say. It's probably off-topic anyway.

Re:Actually, it's just as easy..

[SonicBurst]

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.

Re:how long...

[bhtooefr]

No.

OS - 2 reboots
IE6 - 1 reboot
SP3/4 - 1 reboot
IE Patches - 1 reboot
Other stuff (batch 1) - 1 reboot
Other stuff (batch 2+3) - 1 reboot
Software (optional) - 1+ reboots
Drivers (optional) - 1+ reboots

Total of 7 reboots, not counting software or drivers.

Re:what a troll.

[NanoGator]

"The GUI is confusing and misleading, but 63,000 problems? Come on, how many icons and groupings can a default win2k have wrong?"

There's a lot more to the Windows UI than just drawing icons and and blitting text to the screen. There are refinements made to the Windows UI intended to help people. Sometimes, those go awry, though. It's not necessarily because the code is bad, but the original idea wasn't encompassing enough to all of the users out there.
For example, one of things Windows 2000 will do is reopen the Explorer windows you had open before. Nothing wrong with that. For most people, that's great. However, I found an interesting circumstance where this will cause an error message.

There's a little command-line app called 'subst.exe' that takes a folder and maps it to a drive letter. So I can take the c:\temp folder and make it the x: drive. That's handy if you want to have a consistent drive letter on every machine you use. (Psst Lightwave users: this is a great trick to keep your content directory consistent!) However, the drive doesn't get mapped until after the booting process is done and the app is run. No big deal, if memory serves, this feature actually dates back to the DOS days. It's not a super-huge feature that everybody in the world uses. However, if you have one of these drive letters open in explorer and then reboot Windows, you'll get an error message when it boots back up that says "The folder no longer exists!" Ouch! Oh wait, it does exist, it's just not where Explorer expected to find it!

This techincally isn't a problem. Everything is working as expected. The defect in this case is that subst.exe could play nicer with Explorer by keeping track of temporarily established conditions. It's a complication arisen not out of poorly written code, but an unexpected interaction between two apps. I have a seriously hard time imaginging that the philosophies of the free-software writers that you're talking about wouldn't have encountered a similar problem at some point. I bet it happens all the time. Well, Windows has a ton of apps like these that all come with a basic install. All these permutations are bound to cause numbers in the 64k range of things that could be fixed.

I agree with AnonV, Linux will find itself in a similar situation. Though I'd agree with parent poster that Linux would potentially not have those problems for very long. In theory, the person who finds the problem could fix the bug. However, I wouldn't bet too much on that idea. The more people that use Linux, the lower the percentage of users who would even be capable of fixing the problem, let alone motivated to do so.

Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[throwaway18]

>I think they're at SP6 for that one....
SP6a actually, SP6 had some problems.

Microsoft officially stops selling NT4 licenses
and providing support on the 30th of July, which is next monday.

I will still be running it for some time to come.
NT4 includes version 2 of IE. IE2 is so old it dosn't support http1.1 and can't access virtual hosted sites cutting it off from a lot of the web.

With mozilla it is practical to run NT4 without installing a later version of IE. Installing IE4+ and ending up with bits of IE jammed into the system DLL's significantly slows down NT. Without IE it is pleasent to use on a 200MHZ machine given plenty of RAM.

I want a new version of NT4 with updated drivers and USB support which I would happily roll out instead of 2k. Microsoft plans to maximise revenue direct otherwise.

Re:Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[Loki_1929]

"NT4 includes version 2 of IE. IE2 is so old it dosn't support http1.1 and can't access virtual hosted sites cutting it off from a lot of the web."

Oddly enough, you can install Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 on Windows NT Workstation 4.0. It doesn't appear to slow down anything at all.

"I want a new version of NT4 with updated drivers and USB support "

Yeah, that's called Windows 2000.

"Microsoft plans to maximise revenue direct otherwise."

By your logic, if I can't purchase an Intel 4004 with integrated 802.11a/b and SSE-II, it's because Intel "plans to maximise revenue direct otherwise." That doesn't sound a little silly to you? Come on, this was a product created back in 1995/96. Do you expect them to give you free support and updates in the year 2025? Even Microsoft couldn't afford to do that; they'd have groups of people paid only to support a product that hasn't been produced (read: hasn't made them any money) in more than 20 years. At some point, you must either upgrade to a newer version, or accept that you simply will not have support for things that weren't around when the technology you're using was created.

Re:Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[ottawanker]

The best part about Windows NT4 and IE2 is that you can't install IE 5 until you install service pack 4 (I think it's 4, might be 3). Then, you can't access Microsoft's site to get Service Pack 4 or Internet Explorer, becuase you only have IE2. You have to make sure that you have SP6a and IE5 around before you can do pretty much anything with it now.

Re:Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[Pulver]

If you're talking about a single workstation, your points are good enough to make one pause and think.

Once you start talking about a corporate environment where you are managing hundreds of workstations and dozens of servers, the management and security enhancements in win2k make life a lot easier.

Re:Microsoft's stake in Telewest plunged in value

[DaemonGem]

Actually, the 30th of July is over a month away, if you consider that today is June 27th.

-Dae

Re:So I guess you can take your

[kylef]

BTW, that's XP 2003 with the 64bit support, which is most likely NT5.2, and another payed for dot revision upgrade.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

Windows 2003 64-bit edition is hardly a "dot revision upgrade." Prior to this, the only 64-bit Windows workstation platform available was Windows XP 64-bit "Gold" Edition. It was extremely limited distribution (in addition to having limited features), primarily owing to the fact that you need an Itanium machine to use it, and they are quite scarce.

Windows 2003 64-bit edition, on the other hand, runs on both Itanium and Itanium2 processors right now, and an AMD64 launch will be made later this year simultaneously with Windows 2003 Sp1 for IA64, IIRC.

AMD considers this new version of Windows to be the Windows debut for their AMD64 processor line. It will enable the AMD64 processor to run in so-called "compatibility mode" where your apps can run under the 32-bit "WOW64" environment, while the OS runs in 64-bit native mode at the same time; this allows each 32-bit app to utilize all 4 Gigabytes of virtual address space (no 3/1 split). Native 64-bit apps will enjoy the full 64-bit address space, as well as the extra 8 AMD64 general purpose registers.

Vendors are also working furiously to develop full 64-bit 3-d accelerated drivers for this new workstation version of Windows; the sever market doesn't drive 3-d acceleration much.

Suffice it to say that Windows XP 2003 64-bit Edition will probably be the first version of Windows you're likely to actually use on a desktop 64-bit system. That's not just a "dot-version upgrade..."

this is crap

[jonnystiph]

SP4 known issue: Internet Explorer Times Out While It Loads Web Pages If Norton Internet Security 2001 Is Installed

So uh when you ask for a patch to this problem, is that MS or Norton that you would call? Really this is unacceptable.

Windows *used* to run on other hardware

[SonicBurst]

NT wasn't even originally developed for x86. It was developed for an intel processor that I can't remember the name of. When that processor failed to materialize, NT was ported to x86. NT also ran on PPC and Alpha machines as well. Hell, it was that way until late in the Win2K beta days when MS pulled support for the other architectures. Granted, it never ran on anywhere near the number of architectures that linux / BSD has, but that's not because it isn't portable, just because MS doesn't really need it to right now.

Re:Windows *used* to run on other hardware

[demon]

PPC (and MIPS) support was pulled during the NT 4.0 product cycle, not the Win2K cycle. PPC and MIPS binaries made it onto NT4 CDs, but the support for them was officially killed not too very long after release. Alpha support was killed sometime not long before 2K's release.

And to answer your question, what became NT was originally written to run on Intel's i860 RISC processor, which never really lived up to its supposed potential, languishing as simulated silicon for a long, long time. The chip, which was internally code-named "N-Ten", supposedly became the origin of the "NT" moniker. NT was first ported to the MIPS architecture, then to x86 from there (and of course, PPC and AXP). However, from what I gather, the little-endian modes of the CPUs were used, and the AXP was used in its crippled 32-bit mode instead of taking advantage of the chip's 64-bit functionality - so it never really made the most of the other architectures it ran on anyway. Color me underwhelmed.

Re:Windows *used* to run on other hardware

[SonicBurst]

I'm 95% positive that the dec alpha code was left in Win2k while it was still in the beta stages. I'm too lazy to google for it, but I'm pretty sure it was there. I know it never made it to Win2k release, but like I said, I'm pretty sure it was there in beta. Could be wrong though.

Of course...

[bhtooefr]

...it's not stable, when you can crash it by holding right-CTRL and hitting Scroll Lock twice! 0840v90e79876(*&F^D*&2638 NO CARRIER

face it.

[twitter]

Free Software Works

M$ blows

90 day uptimes, brags the NT dude, ha ha ha.

Re:face it.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Ah yes, the "somebody wrote a web page therefore that substantiates my claim" rebuttal.

"90 day uptimes, brags the NT dude, ha ha ha."

I'd respond to that but I'm going to play Vice City instead. Maybe after that I'll download a game demo or two and see what's next on my 'must acquire' list. Enjoy your computer that's on all the time. :)

Re:face it.

[bellings]

90 day uptime is actually pretty good.

I'll make a bet with you. You set up the daytime server on your desktop machine. Give me the name of your machine (not the IP). I will try to resolve your machines name and connect to the daytime server once a minute for the next 90 days. If I can hit your daytime server every single time, I will give you $100 cash. If I can not, you will give me $100 cash.

If you can't do something as simple as keep a machine available for 90 days, is it because your OS sucks? Because I have an old Pentium 266 machine sitting under my desk that I've been able to hit, every single time, for over a year.

Re:face it.

[Anonvmous Coward]

" Because I have an old Pentium 266 machine sitting under my desk that I've been able to hit, every single time, for over a year."

I've had a great deal of good luck keeping Windows 2000 machines up. It was my job for two years. I had LOTS of time to play around on Slashdot. I also know a fairly broad community of 3D artists who rely on Windows 2000, none of them are mumbling about getting off of it. When it was announced that Lightwave is being ported to Linux, there was a few "uh yeah cool I guess" reactions, and not a whole lot more than that.

If an OS sucks so bad that you lose an overnight rendering, then you suddenly stop using that OS.

Re:face it.

[gbjbaanb]

90 days is a bit pants, but then, people do reboot their manchines for many, many reasons.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/02/25/www by teandswitchcom_reboots_after_two_years.html

Seen in TODO re: Media player problems

[MattGWU]

FIXME: Users can still play whatever they want. Look into/correct this.

Re:No link for EULA or a box of corn flakes

[ratfynk]

Selling or distributing any product in Canada is a funny thing to try to do in Quebec. The Quebec, Office De Lingue Francais or the language police (as the rest of Canada calls them), have most likely given MS shit for ignoring language laws on their software packaging.

If the MS eula is not distributed en Francais, then some smart French Canadien could dispute it, and would no dought win. You cannot even sell Corn Flakes in Canada without French on them. Of course I have never eaten Frenched corn flakes so I do not know how French on them tastes. However, my wife is French and she tastes great!

Think you might be wrong...

[LucidityZero]

I am no microsoft fan. I run Linux at home, my work desktop, and almost every server I build... However...

Christ Almighty couldn't make WinME stable with the help of a dozen M$ software engineers and Gates himself. A stable WinME box? Heh. If such an animal existed, up would be down, black would be white, and I'd be able to get a tan.

My place of employment utilizes two Windows ME boxes to display NetView statistics on HUGE plasma screens in our main support center.
Now, I know that they don't do much but display netview, but in my year and a half there, I have never seen them go down or crash. We've only had to reboot them due to power outages.

MASSIVE EULA CHANGES - MS has caved!??

[gsfprez]

sorry folks, but unless i'm reading something wrong - and i totally admit that i may be - but it appears that MS had made some massive wholesale changes to their EULA...

i can't believe that this has happened.. i'm sure i'm missing something... this is completely not their way. Yes, i am an official /. MS cynic.

previously, SP3 mentioned that they basically retained the right to modify, delete, or install software to ensure that DRM was functional...

SP4 is not at all that way.... i know.. scary.. but it appears that they no longer believe your computer is THEIR computer.

d. Windows Media Digital Rights Management.
    Content providers are using the digital rights management
    technology for Windows Media contained in this Software
    ("WM-DRM") to protect the integrity of their content
    ("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property,
    including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated.
    Portions of this Software and third party applications such
    as media players use WM-DRM to play Secure Content
    ("WM-DRM Software"). If the WM-DRM Software's security
    has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure
    Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke
    the WM-DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or
    play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the
    WM-DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content.
    A list of revoked WM-DRM Software is sent to your
    computer whenever you download a license for Secure
    Content from the Internet. Microsoft may, in
    conjunction with such license, also download
    revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of
    Secure Content Owners. Secure Content Owners
    may also require you to upgrade some of the WM-DRM
    components in this Software ("WM-DRM Upgrades") before
    accessing their content. When you attempt to play
    such content, WM-DRM Software built by Microsoft
    will notify you that a WM-DRM Upgrade is required
    and then ask for your consent before the WM-DRM
    Upgrade is downloaded. WM-DRM Software built
    by third parties may do the same. If you decline
    the upgrade, you will not be able to access content
    that requires the WM-DRM Upgrade; however, you will
    still be able to access unprotected content and
    Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.
    WM-DRM features that access the Internet, such
    as acquiring new licenses and/or performing a
    required WM-DRM Upgrade, can be switched off. When
    these features are switched off, you will still be able
    to play Secure Content if you have a valid license for
    such content already stored on your computer.

Larking

[Snake_Plisken]

I found it funny because it sounds like he doesn't check it regularly...considering how often patches come out, his is a box just ripe for hacking in about 6 months...

Bad impression on my part, sorry. I check it every couple of weeks or so - today I heard a semi-etheral "Go check Windows Update now!" (in an Almighty booming tone) voice in my head when I got out of bed at 2:00 PM :)

Something I still don't understand

[BigFootApe]

I've seen most Windows versions install. I've used most Windows versions. My question is, why does Windows have a tendency to rattle disks, alot.

For example, when W2k installs, there is a point (after it has booted) where the floppy activates, and stays that way for a few seconds. What is it doing except making noise?

When you asked W95, W98 and newer versions to do an auto search for new hardware to install, the primary hard disk made the most awful sound. It sounded like HDTach running or something. What was the OS doing to the hard disk?

Any answers or further anecdotes appreciated.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[reverendslappy]

Done.

Wha?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Q. Are there new features in Windows 2000 SP4?

A. No. Customers have asked that service packs focus entirely on quality updates. Therefore, Windows 2000 SP4 does not include new features.

Q. Does Windows 2000 SP4 offer support for new devices?

A. Yes, Support for Wireless Protocol 802.1x and Support for USB 2.0 EHCI Host Controllers are included with Windows 2000 SP4.

Kind of makes you wonder what Microsoft's definition of "feature" really is...

Re:Just keep in mind...

[My Name Is Neo]

Actually, it's not the fact that it's pirated that a service pack wont install. The service pack installer checks your CD key against known pirated keys.

The most well known XP Pro Corporate key (which had shown up on newsgroups months before XP was released) is banned. I've tried to install XP SP1 with it, and it just error's out. There are a few places on the net however, where you can find tutorials on how to change the XP CD key.

I would expect this new service pack does the same thing.

All In All A Stable OS

[org.earth.Citizen]

Applied SP4 to a test machine and all has been well so far, but will need several more days hammering on it hard. I have found Win2000 to be very stable and reliable. Oh sorry, I forgot I was on Slashdot, were any positive thing said about Microsoft must be prefaced with:
1) I'm no fan of Microsoft, but...
2) I'm forced to use it at work, and...
3) I'd hate to admit it, but..
4) It's painful to say so, but...

My experience with SP4 so far...

[AtariKee]

... 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...

Re:How Slashdot goes against open source philosoph

[mibus]

I normally don't bite for trolls, but I couldn't help:

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The *LICENSE* doesn't discriminate. It's the GPL. The GPL doesn't descriminate.

If Taco wants to discriminate against all people that are under 5 feet tall and stop them from using Slashdot, it's his perogative. But he can't stop 4-foot people from using "his" GPL'd code.

Hmm. I see what you're getting at.
Um... ok... Do you often have conversations with yourself? :-P

I have no choice; Taco has effectively said that I must use a different messaging system if I want to use this software's feature.
IF you want to use the software. It's his software! Copy it and make percent-dot or hash-dot (pound-dot) or something. He won't stop you.

PS. Just use the Jabber field. Everyone who sees @hotmail.com will figure it out.

*OR* you can just not set your IM client field. He isn't forcing you to.

Oooh, he decided he doesn't want an MSN option. He must be evil!

Maybe there's another reason; all he said is it's "not a bug". Hell, it could even just be "wishlist enhancement" instead of "bug".

My favorate:

[Tokerat]

Computer may stop responding for up to one hour durring startup

...oh...of all the things I thought would turn out to be a "feature"...

with win2k, even numbered packs are better.

[Otis_INF]

With NT, MS released 3 bad SP's: 2, 4 and 6. :). On WIn2k though, sp2 was very good, sp3 was crap. It has to be so that SP4 is great ;) (it works ok on the testserver that's routing my internet conne**NO CARRIER**

I'm getting an install error

[radiogeak]

My service pack 4 doesn't even work! Heres the error message i get after it unpacks: "The core system file (kernel) used to start this computer is not a Microsoft Windows file. THe Service Pack will not be installed." What?

Re:Just keep in mind...

[Fish (David B. Trout]

Me too!

But I'd rate it at:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993 75 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949 12983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217 98609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051 32000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178 72146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892 35420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099 60518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318 59502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118 81710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473 03598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957 78185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019 89380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019 52035301852968995773622599413891249721775283479131 51557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509 83817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240 12858361603563707660104710181942955596198946767837 44944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 12933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935 11253382430035587640247496473263914199272604269922 79678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297 45557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029 55321165344987202755960236480665499119881834797753 56636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380 00816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685 48161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143 33454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025 42568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843 83827967976681454100953883786360950680064225125205 11739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118 63067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172 87467764657573962413890865832645995813390478027590 09946576407895126946839...

--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
fish@infidels.org

Fight Spam! Join CAUCE!
http://www.cauce.org/

Re:Oh no! Even numbered Service Pack!

[iapetus]

Does that mean Windows 2000 isn't an Enterprise OS after all?

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[dotgain]

Well done
According to your source of "proof", UNIX operating systems make up "0%" of the global OS share, with Linux leading ever so slightly at 0%.
While I previously though at least 5% of the machines out there had be unixish, "thecounter.com" has proven me wrong.
There's nothing on that page that says what it is a counter of.
And before others do, I remind you that my browser can tell a webserver that it is whatever OS I want it to be.
Webserver stats (if that's what your link is) are not a definitive summary of what OS's are out there. It's a summary of what OS people who hit your website are using. A slashdot poll would probably be more accurate here *.
* were the article about Cowboy Neal SP4

To update or not to update, sysadmin's drea(d|m)

[llauren]

So, if i don't update my department's machines before i'm off to holidays, something terrible might happen. And if i do update, and then head off for holiday, something will.

OK, maybe those machines will stay up for when i am away (yeah, right).

~rL

SP4 and Clustering Services

[lsoth]

Has anyone out there applied SP4 to a two-node Windows 2000 Cluster yet, and if so how did things turn out? Clustering services for Windows is very sensitive sometimes, however I will take any opportunity to stabilize that I can!

Re:what a troll.

[geschild]

I have little hope of you still reading this but here goes:

I _have_ to agree with you that Win2k is the best operating system ever to be produced by Microsoft. Yes I'm counting XP.

When W2k came out I was saying to people: if they keep this up, they have a very good chance of keeping the lead for virtually forever. Then came the new licensing and other 'misbehaviour' (on the bussiness part) and I gave up on them.

The most insightfull part about your comment I find the part where you say

"We'll see how stable your Linux machine gets when games start becoming available. You'll find out just how 'rock-solid' it is then. Linux machines are not being used like Windows machines are, so drawing comparisons like that is not very informative."

I think it will depend on how willing the graphics hardware designers are to let the drivers be developped by the open source community and not much else. Which may mean that this particular part of stability comparisons isn't on the Operating System but on the graphical drivers, or at least the graphical sub-system. I think that Linux will be better than Windows at this part too, once the graphics part is nailed down. What I'm basically saying is: Linux is ready for the office desktop, not for the home desktop.

So, you're right that if you use Linux in the same way that people use Windows for tasks that Linux currently isn't "fit" for yet, Windows comes out on top. However on tasks that they can both do (in terms of "designed for the task") I think Linux, and any Unix for that matter will beat the pants off of Windows for the same hardware and demand, both in performance and stability. (Turning your argument around).

When Linux becomes a real contender, the nicest thing about that is, I think, that it became popular in the office environment first, then spread to the home which is completely reversed from how Windows became ubiquitous. It probably is also the reason why people at home will get a better computer experience from it when this happens.

As a closing remark: it is people like you, with whom one can argue with on the facts, that keep me coming back here.

Confirmed.

[Compact Dick]

MD5 checksum of "D:\setup\patches\W2KSP4\W2KSP4_EN.EXE":
a4 ef 6c 91 d4 18 41 8b 28 7c ef e3 1f 95 81 75

Re:Now we know were the bloat comes from..

[pecosdave]

Disagree. If replacing entire files (which I see few other ways other than registry and config file changes) removal of crap code, or replacing long complicated code with short to the point code can fix bugs and leave a smaller foot print in the end. I don't exactly expect Microsoft to do that, but it is a possibility.

Remember, the original Mozilla project they intended the entire browser to fit on a single floppy and be better than Netscape 4.x They didn't suceed, but the early pre-releases just about fit on a floppy, and in many was were much better than Communicator.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[rczyzewski]

I rate it a 3.14 or so

even 2000

[junkgoof]

NT4 had its limitations, but the limitations are generally technical (crappy graphics without SP3 because it was written in '93, reboot often without SP4 for same reason...), not intentional.

2000 Has inconveniences, and they aren't technical. The tools are hidden through one more layer of shortcuts.

XP has problems. Stuff is better hidden, and default options are offensive. Hmmm, I'll check my C: drive, "warning, looking at this can damage windows," I want to do it anyway, hey there is nothing here, "yes I want to see contents of C: drive (after tracking down option), hey, windows directory isn't here...

I can deal with technical limitations, but stupid child-proofing pisses me off.

Re:/. Minor Versions?

[reverendslappy]

*yawn*

You can argue the minutial points of that survey, and that's fine. But even if those statistics are really, really skewed, the original point ("I'll guarantee you there's far more Win 2000 boxes out there than any of the Free OSes...") is still clearly valid. And you'd have to be completely delusional to think Windows doesn't have the VAST majority of marketshare.

"And before others do, I remind you that my browser can tell a webserver that it is whatever OS I want it to be"

So what are you saying? Do you think one of the counts is inflated? Are you implying people are spoofing their HTTP headers to show they run Windows when in fact they don't? Or are you implying that the real count of OSS systems is actually lower than it is?

WIN2K SP4 Breaks

[mdrplg]

I installed SP4 and rebooted. I noticed that every thing was running v e r y s l o w l y. I found a process in task manager that was sucking up all my cpu cycles. I uninstalled it and my system works to speed. I don't know about this SP4. Has anybody had a good install?

Re:Windows ME

[The Angry Mick]

I never liked it 'cause it sounded too much like a verb.

Re:To update or not to update, sysadmin's drea(d|m

[Mistah Blue]

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).

go play with one of these folks.

[twitter]

I'll make a bet with you. You set up the daytime server on your desktop machine. Give me the name of your machine (not the IP). I will try to resolve your machines name and connect to the daytime server once a minute for the next 90 days. If I can hit your daytime server every single time, I will give you $100 cash. If I can not, you will give me $100 cash.

Take your "266 machine" and your script kiddie toys and play with these people. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, take your $100 bill, fold it till it's all sharp corners and shove it up your ass.

Re:go play with one of these folks.

[bellings]

Which of those machines on the netcraft board is admin'd by you? I think it's really damned impressive that you have a machine on the netcraft uptime list.

Obviously, I was referring to availability, and not uptime, but uptime like that is worth a reward anyhow. Tell me which of those machines is yours, and I'll send a check to the registered domain admin.

I won't stick it up my ass first, though. You'll have to get your scat kink somewhere else.

Re:what a troll.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I have little hope of you still reading this but here goes:"

Email notification's great, isn't it? ;)

"I _have_ to agree with you that Win2k is the best operating system ever to be produced by Microsoft. Yes I'm counting XP."

I have XP on my laptop. I can honestly say I don't mind it it all. Unfortunately, I cannot measure it's stability against a desktop as my laptop is rebooted twice a day. (I'm not a big fan of it running while I'm in the car.) I can say that I've been doing a lot of 3D work on it and it's been stable for me. I can't give you an up-time estimate, though. I like it as a laptop OS, but have little reason to want to put it on my 2k desktop that's been problem free for ages.

" Which may mean that this particular part of stability comparisons isn't on the Operating System but on the graphical drivers, or at least the graphical sub-system."

I'm quite confident that this is the issue. I've observed it on both Windows and Linux. Start getting 3D graphics involved and suddenly you've got a questionable machine. I wish I could tell you that I had scientific evidence of that, but I don't. My company's building a system using Linux boxes that's running 3D hardware. I was surprised at all the problems they've had. First it was getting the driver to work, then it was getting the app working right when a different video card was used. Then there was software mode. Geez. I can't believe how complex it is. They have to troubleshoot everything.

"I think that Linux will be better than Windows at this part too, once the graphics part is nailed down. What I'm basically saying is: Linux is ready for the office desktop, not for the home desktop."

I, for the most part, agree with you. The problem is that Linux's 'greatness' is only part of the equation. Good drivers still have to be produced. And for that, companies like NVidia will have to say "this is a priority". It's hard to imagine they'll get all that attention while Windows has such a vast majority of the marketshare. However, there is one really strong point to make for Linux: Movie studios are migrating to it. NVidia would not want to let ILM down.

I do think, though, taht Linux will have a very difficult time getting into the home desktop until a company gets involved in making the UI home-friendly. Making a good UI involves more than coders, it involves design people. I haven't been exposed to every free-app out there, but every time I see one it's very easy to see that it's an engineer designed interface. That alone will be a problem for home adoption.

"However on tasks that they can both do (in terms of "designed for the task") I think Linux, and any Unix for that matter will beat the pants off of Windows for the same hardware and demand, both in performance and stability. "

I don't have any issue with that argument. I think you're probably right. To be fair, though, Linux has been developed to do those jobs almost exclusively. (well that may not be the right way of putting it, but I'm in a bit of a hurry and am having difficulty finding the right term.) For example, Microsoft feels that a Windows machine, even a server, must have a good interface. Linux, on the other hand, feels that a server should be a server and little else. So basically, the Linux box is set up once to run the server and is tuned to run that task indefinitely. This is the best way to handle a server setup. Microsoft hasn't dropped down into that level, though supposedly the 2003 server MS made should support running in a CLI mode. Remove the Windows graphic system from the mix, and you greatly reduce the number of threads of things happening there. I can't help but think a huge stabililty boost will grow from that. Who knows? So yeah, I agree, but to be fair MS and the Linux Community have different design philosophy (each with their own strengths) so it's not exactly an apples to apples comp

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bhtooefr]

Is that the FCKGW one? Because SP1 worked on it.

Re:ahh help!

[tclark]

We installed it on a workstation here, now it won't boot either.

Re:Minor bug in SP4

[TeddyR]

English network install...

[I like to have the files in case I need to reinstall); + I always ghost before a sp update + I select the "keep old files"....]

fat chance, pepper spray

[twitter]

You will have to DoS them all. When they put you in jail, you will wish it was only a pointy $100 bill.

Re:fat chance, pepper spray

[bellings]

Actually, I am being quite serious. Tell me which machine on the netcraft uptime survey is the one you admin, and I will send you a (good) check for $100.

Barring that, shut up.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[My Name Is Neo]

Yeah it is; that's odd though, because I've tried it on at least 6 different machines, and it refused to install on all of them until I changed the key. Did you just use the Windows Update to install SP1? Perhaps that works, because I downloaded the entire SP1 and installed it offline.

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bhtooefr]

I don't know, I wasn't the one who did it. I suspect that he used Windows Update, because the Add/Remove Programs list looked suspiciously like Windows Update had gone at it a few times. (Hotfix after hotfix after hotfix...)

Re:Just keep in mind...

[bhtooefr]

If you were meaning the W2K install, yes, I did do it that way. BTW, are there any legit XP Corporate installs with that CD key?

windows file protection (WFP)

[sewagemaster]

does anyone know how to completely disable windows file proection (WFP) on sp4? i've tried the same technique for sp3 and unfortunately it doesnt work. (i patched sfc.dll

Re:Just keep in mind...

[My Name Is Neo]

I wouldn't know. I would say no because the key and ISO showed up in newsgroups at least 2 to 3 months before XP was released (There's even a picture of someone holding the rip in front of Microsoft's X days until XP launches sign). I myself had it one month before...Not that I kept it or anything ;P

I'm sure Microsoft got wind of the key long before anyone actually used it and I would guess whoever may have gotten the key was issued new a new one.

Installed & Uninstalled SP4

[rlp]

Installed SP4 on a working stable networked box. After installation, the PC could access the LAN and the router, but could no longer access the Internet. Checked the network settings - nothing had changed. Checked (and reset) the router. Uninstalled and reinstalled the TCP/IP stack. Still no go. Finally uninstalled SP4 and everything's back to normal. I guess I'll wait for SP5.

Re:what a troll.

[cscx]

When I saw Anonvmous Coward's response to this complete bullshit, I lowered my threshold so I see who wrote this and add you to my foes list. Then realized that you were already there.

it wont install with a different boot loader

[terrox]

I have mandrake 9 boot loader on my win2k machine.
"The core system file (kernel) used to start this computer is not a Microsoft Windows file. The Service Pack will not be installed. For more information, see Knowledge Base article at http://support.microsoft.com."

Note: it does not say WHICH article.
PS: I hate microsoft.

Re:what a troll.

[geschild]

Thanks for the reply. I'll be thinking about your arguments for some time but this thread will close soon enough so I would like to divert further discussion to a thread on a new article on this issue. (We probably won't have to wait long, this being /. and all.)

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Ice_Balrog]

Um, no. Windows is no where near to where Linux is in security. The so called training is simply a PR move.

You can believe what you want, but it's still wrong. And MS patches are a pain in the ass to install. I don't like having to agree to yet another EULA, restart, and wait forever for each patch to run itself. Mandrake Linux's updater is much easier.


PS, if you aren't a troll, why are you afraid to sign your name to your post?