Slashdot Mirror


Windows XP SP2 Still Rough Around the Edges

Megor1 writes "According to crn.com when they tried upgrading various computers to Windows XP SP2 RC2 3 out of 5 of the machines failed to come back up, and had to have both SP1 and SP2 removed via various hacks supplied by Microsoft. Sounds like it might take a lot longer for Microsoft to release SP2 if RC2 is any sign of how far they are along."

613 comments

  1. So, XP market share could drop 60%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Neat! This is the best thing to happen to the internet in years.

  2. SP!!! by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Troll

    2!!!

    1. Re:SP!!! by ci4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/king_crimson/th rak/dinosaur/ ....
      ignorance has alway been something i excel in
      followed by naivete and pride ....

    2. Re:SP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got Second Post (SP2)!

    3. Re:SP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the most brilliant, and well-timed posts ever.

  3. If you're smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...you'll wait for XP SP3.1.

    1. Re:If you're smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you're already running Linux. =)

    2. Re:If you're smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they will charge $99 for it. and probably call it Windows ZP

    3. Re:If you're smart... by has2k1 · · Score: 1

      SP3.1 !!! just like the twins paradox by the time u realise the other guy will be younger and still fresh. Recently, on my xp partition after i shutdown all apps ready to reboot. ring ring ring a call, i service that visitor while staring at the screen. after sometime as you would expect a "screen saver" appears(when did i apply that blue screen saver, i wonder ??). hew, the "visitor" hangs up. i move my mouse and the screen saver is still saving my CRT. foolish me filled with all the caffiene at 4:00am, i hadn't realised it was the BSOD.

  4. Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jeezus Kreist, XP's SP2 ?!? I've still never been able to install W2K's SP4 and have a bootable machine afterward. Good thing SP4 has an uninstaller.

    A OS patch with an uninstaller. They've been aware that their shit sucks for years.

    1. Re:Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I must be clicking INSTALL too hard. ;)

    2. Re:Amazing by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Haven't seen too many problems with SP4 on MS Win2000. The only one that I've personally seen is a problem with an Alteon Gigabit network card (can't recall the model, but it's an older card) on a system Dell sold that originally had WinNT4. Outside of that, SP4 has worked on a variety of systems where I work.

    3. Re:Amazing by 0racle · · Score: 1

      If you've never had a bootable machine after, how did you run the uninstaller?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Amazing by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Please answer the question. How did you run the SP4 uninstall if it caused yor machine to not boot at all.

      Thanks.

    5. Re:Amazing by aelbric · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, SP4 has an uninstaller. It's called Fedora Core 2 Disk 1.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    6. Re:Amazing by xrayspx · · Score: 1

      I have a few dozen machines that upgraded flawlessly to SP4. They are not all identical, some are webservers, some are DBs, some are various types of middle-tier application machines. Not a single one gave us any trouble at all. You must be running some funky funky code on there. We have some running .NET 1.0 apps, some with .NET 1.1.4, odd, never had the problem.

    7. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's funny.

    8. Re:Amazing by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Awesome trolling there, keep up the great work!

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    9. Re:Amazing by CdBee · · Score: 3, Informative

      I upgraded 150 Dells to SP4 from SP2 and SP3, every single one came up perfectly. I suspect parent is a troll

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    10. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he fixed the machine by hand until it was able to run the uninstaller. i.e. maybe he's smarter than your average mouse-clicking winluser.

      Are you satisfied now, Mr. Mason?

    11. Re:Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      Please see here.

    12. Re:Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 2, Funny

      I do most of my trolling these days IN JAPAN, but thanks muchly, bud! :D

    13. Re:Amazing by HungSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Wow, replacing buggy Microsoft beta software with buggy RedHat beta software. No thanks. Real men run Slack.

      --
      $ whatis themeaningoflife
      themeaningoflife: not found
    14. Re:Amazing by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      ROFL, and someone even actually modded you up.

      Every time I think I can't be amazed any more by the adolescent smegma I read around here someone like you comes along and surprises me.

    15. Re:Amazing by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1

      I've still never been able to install W2K's SP4 and have a bootable machine afterward

      That is really bizzare. You must have a really strange setup or something. I have never ever seen that happen.

    16. Re:Amazing by slashjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      What are you doing wrong??? I'm a network admin for about 100 Windows 2000 Pro workstations. I've NEVER had any problems loading them with SP4. Here's how I upgrade them to SP4:

      1. Backup ALL pertinent information to a file server/other computer.
      2. Use a Win2000 disk to format and install Win2000 by itself. Install any SCSI/RAID drivers here if you have to.
      3. Install SP4 BEFORE you install anything else (including drivers).
      4. Install all of the Windows Updates that are part of your Standard Operating Environment (SOE).
      5. Install your hardware drivers.
      6. Install the applications that are part of your SOE.
      7. Copy the information that was backed up in step 1 back to this machine.

      You now have a Win2000 SP4 box ready for use.

    17. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'real' men don't run linux, period.

    18. Re:Amazing by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Or Debian. Debian is manly as well :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    19. Re:Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      Interesting, /james. I've never tried to do it like that. Thanks for the input.

    20. Re:Amazing by brain159 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, only integer men use linux.

      Real men probably use BSD.

      (Please, don't ask me what Complex men might use - I've not thought this through well enough to cope with that).

    21. Re:Amazing by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      So what do imaginary men run?

      HURD perhaps? ;)

    22. Re:Amazing by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, "real" men handcode their own OS in assembler.

      Or maybe Forth.

      Reminds me of Tori Amo's song, "Real Men": "But sometimes we wonder who the 'real men' are?"

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    23. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I upgraded 150 Dells

      Now try 150 different branded and no-brand boxes. Remember they each have various mobos, processors, drives, sound and video cards, and networking devices. Then come back to us.

    24. Re:Amazing by netsharc · · Score: 1

      150 Dells? Sound like a homogeneous system.. are they all configured the same? If so, I can't see why a certain percentage should fail, they would either all die or all live. Well, I had no problems installing SP4, so that's 150 Dells + 1 generic system.

      To be on topic, the article talked about SP2 RC3, RC means Release Candidate, not Release. So why do people here expect it to work perfectly.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    25. Re:Amazing by gnuLNX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No. You now have an insecure worm ridden peice of shit.

      Ha Mod me down fools.

      --
      what?
    26. Re:Amazing by Phillup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hm...

      Am I the only one that runs Drive Image (or a similar tool) before running anything from MS Update?

      Always.

      I've had the thing crap out too damn many times to even consider updating w/o an image backup first.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    27. Re:Amazing by wfberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The idea of a servicepack is that you can use it to upgrade a live installation, just like with windows update. Reinstalling and then restoring data from a backup.. That's just.. wrong..

      For one thing, what happens to stuff in the registry in odd places (HKLM)? Why isn't data already on a separate partition, if not a network (NAS/SAN) drive? Not using roaming profiles - are you mad? Why not using a slipstreamed install, or even better using ghost to duplicate disk images if you're using a "standard operating environment"?

      You sound like some one who feels the need to format his hard drive every once in a while, "just in case".

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    28. Re:Amazing by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Because he isn't running the same model computer as one of the 150 Dells you upgraded?

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    29. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, just 7 easy steps (including reformat and reinstall).

      I'm not sure if you are serious or this is some kind of dry humour.

      Steps 1 & 7, by the way, are a bitch.. how do you manage to copy all the configs and settings correctly?

      Oh well. I must admit until I switched from Red Hat to FreeBSD (and gentoo sometimes), I used to do the same thing to upgrade the OS. But 1) I don't do it any more and 2) I didn't have to pay Microsoft for the privelege.

    30. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What are you doing wrong??? I'm a network admin for about 100 Windows 2000 Pro workstations. I've NEVER had any problems loading them with SP4. Here's how I upgrade them to SP4:

      Umm, excuse the troll here... But since when having to FORMAT AND REINSTALL FROM SCRATCH, THEN REPATCH EVERYTHING... become standard operating procedure for a service pack upgrade? Since when did applying security updates mean rebuilding an entire system from scratch?

    31. Re:Amazing by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      No, you're not the only one. However, I fail to see how that relates to running the uninstaller for a SP that supposedly rendered a machine unbootable.

    32. Re:Amazing by sootman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you being funny and the mods didn't get it, or were you being serious and your "insightful" mods are a bit of a reach? I mean, your advice is sound and your process is good but the process you describe, by definition, is *not* an upgrade. It's closer to a migration. An upgrade is like what I do on OS X:
      1) hear about a new update being available
      2) read forums for a day or two to see if there's anything catastrophic (like the old "hard drive name starts with a space" bug)
      3) system prefs -> software update -> check now -> install
      4) reboot

      OTOH, Mac OS X has not had a single, automatically-spreading, remote root exploit worm in the 3 years it has been out, so to be honest, I don't even really concern myself with updates. I mean, not with a gotta-have-it, zero-day urgency.

      Besides, how in the hell is the average user supposed to know what EVERY SINGLE PIECE of pertinant information is? And what if they have tons of songs and movies--are they supposed to buy a whole external drive just to run a damn system update? Even if they do, there will still be a thousand little things to be done--little preferences to be set, arrange the desktop icons, browser history is gone so links are blue again, etc etc etc.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    33. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats not a Tori Amos song. Its a cover song. And its about Gay people, not slashdot nerds

    34. Re:Amazing by TelJanin · · Score: 2, Funny

      AmigaOS 4, with Duke Nukem Forever installed.

    35. Re:Amazing by rikkards · · Score: 1

      That is amazing. I do tier 3 support and we have over 42 THOUSAND workstations running SP4.

    36. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound like a homogeneous system.. are they all configured the same? If so, I can't see why a certain percentage should fail, they would either all die or all live.

      I take it you've never used Windows ;)

    37. Re:Amazing by brsmith4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats wonderful. I've about 70 win machines on a condor grid, some AMD boxes some P4 Dells. On 3 machines, SP4 completely hosed Add/Remove Programs and the control panel. There was something else even more serious but this was a while ago. I had to roll everything back to SP3 to maintain concurrency.

      I'm a beowulf admin and deal mainly with linux so I am probably not the best choice when you want someone to admin a windows box. Maybe I screwed up somewhere?

      Default Win2k install, nothing installed, sp4 update. 3 screwed machines. Ever heard of this?

    38. Re:Amazing by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

      I feel much safer because of the PATRIOT ACT and am grateful we have intelligent Republicans (redundant) looking out for our country. They're much smarter than some know-it-all slashdotter who thinks they're clever putting political messages in their sigs.

    39. Re:Amazing by Val314 · · Score: 1

      > 2. Use a Win2000 disk to format and install Win2000 by itself. Install any SCSI/RAID drivers here if you have to.
      > 3. Install SP4 BEFORE you install anything else (including drivers).

      why dont you just Slipstream (instructions are for XP, but they are the same on Win2000) SP4 into the Windows CD?

    40. Re:Amazing by Schreckgestalt · · Score: 0
      Troll! Contrary to popular belief, 'managing' Windows workstations can be done. The trick is to let the users have no apps!

      Because whenever you try to lock down the workstations, someone in that 6000-users community wants app X, and app X, while perfectly stable, requires more rights than that. And you can't believe what a feeling it is to give admin privileges to everyone because of stupid software. Even Office 2000 requires a little bit more than user rights.

      The worst is when applications tend to register DLLs at run time... and not at install time, where admin rights are normally present.

    41. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HURD. Why? Because it includes an imaginary component.

    42. Re:Amazing by Anonymovs+Covvard · · Score: 1

      Real Men don't quote Tori Amos.

    43. Re:Amazing by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I've done 40 odd upgrades from SP 2/3 to SP 4 on a variety of custom builds.. And these are all home machines that I've built along the way for friends and their families.. Hardware varies, motherboards vary wildly, and no two are alike (well, one or two are similar, but there's always the odd difference to tweak it for the requirement).
      To date: Zero bombs on the upgrades.
      Not saying they never do happen, or they can't happen.. Just in my experience, it's been pretty solid.
      And no, I'm no MS apologist. I use Linux/FreeBSD where I can, and Windows where I can't (such as playing games not working under WineX, using iTunes and such)..
      Credit where it's due.. MS did ok with SP4.
      It's certainly worked for me, given the constraints you mentioned.

    44. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTLF!!! MOD PARENT UP FUNNY!

    45. Re:Amazing by nimid · · Score: 1

      Ahhh...

      ...a fresh system in only 3.8 hours!

      Hehe! I agree with the slipstreaming approach mentioned slightly higher up (in a far less sarcastic post) ;o)

      --
      A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
    46. Re:Amazing by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      NT4 SP4 changed the NTFS format and randomly made the machine unbootable, but they fixed that on SP5.

      Win2k SP4 did something funky to the login dialog that broke it if you were running under vmware (we have maybe 20 vmware machines for every real machine), but the answer was to copy the files from a standard Win2k.

      XP SP2 certainly does cause problems... until the workarounds are well known it's not going to get a widespread rollout, but that's to be expected with something as major as that. It's home users that will bear the brunt of the problems (along with MS tech support... for which they charge per incident. Nice little earner for them).

    47. Re:Amazing by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Cover or whatever, she sang it. What part of that don't you comprehend?

      There's a difference between gay men and /. nerds? Really?

      Maybe it's because gay men are more involved in reality that /. nerd boys?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    48. Re:Amazing by rch1025 · · Score: 1

      Try, a nice hot cup of tea. (Hitchiker's guide)

    49. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is amazing. So you jump off any tombs lately?

      - sho-han

    50. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummmm, that's Windows 2000. This article covers XP. RTFA.

    51. Re:Amazing by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Complex men use BSD, just like real men, but also have girlfriends (that's the imaginary part).

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    52. Re:Amazing by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

      Uhm. Isn't the obvious answer to that question: Windows XP SP2? :D

    53. Re:Amazing by ParnBR · · Score: 1

      I second the parent. Around 50 SP4 installs in non-homogeneous machines and everything came out fine. A few installations under VMWare as well. I don't claim every machine was completely different from the other, but they were pretty mixed: Pentium MMX, Pentium II, Pentium III, Celeron slot 1, K6-2, Pentium 4, Duron, Athlon and Athlon XP endured it just fine. They used chipsets from a lot of vendors, like Intel, VIA and SiS. Memory chips were usually "generic" ones, varied capacity and memory sticks positioning. There was Maxtor, Samsung, Seagate, Western Digital and Fujitsu HDs, and videocards with nVidia, S3, SiS and Trident chipsets (including onboards). And an even wider sound chip selection. Never, never seen a hiccup in SP4 installation. Then, good-bye to uninstallation files... ^^

      --
      My neighbor's .sig is better than mine.
    54. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complex men? Two copies of BSD, clearly, but with one of them on an i-Mac. Quaternions and octonians just need a few more copies.

      Finite dimensions are easy. Open question: What do L^p men use?

    55. Re:Amazing by kapowaz · · Score: 1

      OS/2 Warp, of course!

  5. codename by cyrl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows XP SP2... codename Longhorn =)

    1. Re:codename by Zemplar · · Score: 0

      Hell, I would have given you at least two points for that one!

    2. Re:codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Shorthorn?

    3. Re:codename by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 3, Funny

      that's a lot of bull

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    4. Re:codename by damballah · · Score: 1

      More like Duke Nukem Forever.

    5. Re:codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheepdip?

    6. Re:codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is giving UT a bad name!

    7. Re:codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from all the problems it sounds more like "wrong horn" than longhorn...

      when will they (MS) ever get it right??

  6. umm.... by liloconf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually the computers not turning back on is one of the new security features....

    1. Re:umm.... by ack154 · · Score: 1

      Actually the computers not turning back on is one of the new security features...

      Well, if they can't get into it and on the internet to infect themselves with something... it's "secure" ... right?

    2. Re:umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use XP on a Dell to manage songs on a mp3 player, but right now, connected to the internet, I use my remaster of Damn Small Linux.
      I don't worry too much about windows-targeted viruses and trojans, etc.

      To make bootup easier, I include an .xserverrc in the remaster for a specific machine, so I don't have to set up the X Server, Mouse and Screen stuff each time, required in "OEM" Damn Small.
      Using this remaster, I save a lot of time not having to do windows updates, virus updates, etc. that seem to come up almost weekly (or more frequently) on the Dell.

      I wish things were not so complicated for Windows, or I would use that box more often.

      The box I'm using the remaster on has a pair of 200 mmx processors, and 256 MB ram.
      It's fine like it is for web surfing and email.

  7. frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    it's beta. it's supposed to work 100% yet.

    1. Re:frosty by RTPMatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My computer has been acting up ever since i put it on. It freezes during regular usage, and while shutting down. It never did that before (by never i mean not as much ;) ) Its all bad.

    2. Re:frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not beta. It's a release candidate, which means most of the nastiest bugs should have been squashed by now.

      I'm glad I ignored the SP2 installer that appeared in Windows Update on my office PC-- my clients provide me with enough Windows messes to clean up, I don't need my own PC shitting the bed as well.

    3. Re:frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not beta.. its RC (release candidate)

    4. Re:frosty by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's RC aka Release Candidate - that means this is a candidate that is intended to be representative of the final release, and it's being put out there for public testing of the candidate before it's polished into the final. Or that's the idea anyway. An alpha or beta could be forgiven a 60% failure rate, an RC should never be like this.

    5. Re:frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used to be called gamma testing. Seriously. It worked a little like this:

      Alpha -- known to be broken and some features not yet complete
      Beta -- features are complete, and probably still broken
      Gamma -- should not be broken, but and final testing is just to make sure

      Microsoft uses the same milestones, but they call alpha "version 1.0," beta "version 2.0," and gamma "version 3.0."

    6. Re:frosty by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Release candidate means "This is a version we think is close to done, but KNOW isn't. It's close to final." They even refer to it as beta software on the site, and MS goes out of their way to prevent people installing it on the perceived basis that it's stable.

      That's why there's usually (almost always) more than one RC: to get a feel for what's happening outside the test environments. Also, this is 5 different machines tested by one company. That's not indicative of the thousands of other machines the service pack is being tested on, so "40% failure rate" (60% success rate, not 60% failure rate as you mentioned) isn't really accurate anyway.

      In my own tests, I've seen SP2 work well on a variety of machines. I've also seen it crash an Athlon 64 rig horrifically. I'm not pleased with that at all, and it better be fixed, but I certainly wasn't expecting every computer to work right with SP2.

    7. Re:frosty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? 3 computers out of 5 failed. That's 6 out of 10. That's 60% failure.

    8. Re:frosty by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      This is a version we think is close to done, but KNOW isn't. It's close to final.

      Then why do they call it "Release Candidate"? That implies that it is a candidate for release: they feel that this exact build should be bug-free enough to go gold unless they find some new show-stopping bugs.

      If they KNOW it isn't final, then by definition it can't be a candidate for final release.

    9. Re:frosty by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      It seems that over the years microsoft has perverted a lot of computing terms and made a lot of them up because they didn't like the fact other companies made them up (see "managed" code meaning basically a garbage collector ).

      It seems this has happened to "Release candidate" too. MS's are always extremely buggy so MS apologists have taken "release candidate" to mean what everyone else knows as a beta.

  8. Worked Fine for Me by timothy_m_smith · · Score: 1

    I have a machine that is in terrible shape including some sort of registry corruption and ati driver issues. I installed SP2 last night and the machine was actually in better shape after the install...no more registry issues and less ati issues.

    1. Re:Worked Fine for Me by ProudClod · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... Because it didn't turn on at all :)

      --
      Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
    2. Re:Worked Fine for Me by Likes+Microsoft · · Score: 1
      I had a similar experience. To be safe, I backed up everything under
      C:\Documents and Settings
      first, but it turned out to be completely unnecessary. My system runs beautifully with SP2 and I have a decent software firewall as part of the OS now.

      That said, my plan is not to stick with the Windows OS after the current version. The "Trusted Computing" changes coming down the pipeline are just too Orwellian. I'm testing out various Linux distros on my old machine to see what my next operating system is going to be. I love MacOS X, but there's no reason to believe the won't also go down the heavily DRM'd route.

      --
      -- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
  9. Just SP2 is Rough? by SeinJunkie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At what point are we saying anything Microsoft makes is more refined than "rough?"

    1. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is an exaggeration. Nobody here loves Microsoft's business practices, certainly not me, but Windows 2000 Professional is an excellent desktop OS, and the 2000 Server products are good too.

      I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.

      Frankly, people who knee-jerk and say "it's from Microsoft, it must be shit" or words to that effect have no idea of how good a product Windows 2000 really is.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by secolactico · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.

      Games. That was the reason I upgraded from 2000 to XP. Games that were only for Win98 and balked when running in 2000 ran trouble free in XP.

      Other than that, 2000 is great. I used it at the office until they gave me a new notebook with XP preinstalled.

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Win2k has an excelent compatibility mode you can run games in. I've gotten many of the windows 98 games that many people have had issues running in win2k, to work with the compatibility mode. It's just kinda tricky to turn on.. Even Fallout works in 2k.

    4. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just to be clear, the W2K compatibility stuff is a seperate download. I don't think it's been on Windows Update since XP appeared. So, many users might be unaware that 2K equals XP in this department.

    5. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by vk2 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the encouragement and saving me 189 bucks. I was seriously considering* about buying an upgrade to XP from Win2K Pro. Now I guess I will spend the savings on a good DVD burner.
      * - Home calling features made me not to buy it till date. And I guess I won't be buying one till they announce a 20$ home use program for WinXP Pro :-)

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    6. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by atari2600 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I totally agree with the parent. If you want to know more about the Windows 2000 OS, read the book Inside Windows 2000 3rd Edition by Solomon and Russinovich and get to know Windows 2000 internals in detail. If you are one of the teen slashdot kiddies out to save the internet and this world by installing Linux on everything in sight and saying MS sucks, then that book isn't for you.

    7. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I used to agree with you. But yesterday I had to fix 2 Win2K systems which completely shat themselves. Neither would boot, both with bluescreens. Different reasons in both cases, but same error messages. Also dealt with a WinXP laptop which was a complete mess.

      Win2K is great on business desktops which see limited functionality used - a couple of apps, some flitered email and intarweb, but otherwise left alone by the end user. I've yet to see a Windows system that can withstand clueless users abusing them day in and day out. I've noticed that those that tout Windows as being "all that" seem to recommend a clean reinstall as an acceptable way of fixing them too...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    8. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.
      So you haven't even tried XP yet? Gee you must be an expert on it. Well expert enough for /.

      I moved my computers to Windows XP Pro because I liked the remote desktop feature. Most of my computers are closet computers, I controlled them via VNC, but I liked the AD integration of RD within XP so I switched.

      Well I can tell you I love Windows XP, I'm not that much of a gamer, so compatibility wasn't a worry, but it's just as stable as 2000 Pro was for me, the driver roll back is nice (someone published faulty drivers for my smart card reader on WU), and other than the activation there really is no call back.

      Don't have any hard numbers, nor do I run any games on most of my systems, but the day to day use it seems as fast as 2000 Pro, though it boots up faster.

      The only annoying thing was for the systems that I upgraded, if they had a burner I had to purchase the latest version, the Windows 2000 software wouldn't work under Windows XP.

      About the Service Pack, don't know why everyone is up in arms, it's a release candidate, it's bound to have some problems in it. I'm not touching it until about a week after it's released.

    9. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by _damnit_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I ran 2k on my desktop at home and my laptop. I upgraded the laptop to XP for the wireless utilities built in. 2k required a vendor supplied utility which plain sucked. XP SP2rc2 has a very nice setup for wireless that makes it worthwhile for me. Over 4 years of running 2k and XP I've had only 3 bluescreens. Two of them were hardware faults (no ECC mem on either of my win machines). So, altogether not bad. I have my complaints, but stability is generally not one of them.
      My servers are a different story. They are all Solaris Sparc boxes. When it comes to my web/dns/firewall/mail I don't trust anything else yet. I often load up a machine with the newest SUSE, redhat or Mandrake and play around, but always end up leaving things the way they are - working.

      --


      _damnit_

      It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
    10. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got 80 or so computers that I manage in a small office that all run win2k. These people abuse them on a daily basis and I have never had a problem with them. And I am not one for reinstalling windows on a box. That just isn't a solution, I agree with you there.
      Many of my servers run linux... so I am not a complete MS lover. The servers that do run windows though... thats another story.

    11. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by zulux · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Windows 2000 seems good enough....

      Until you sit down and play with Mac OS-X.

      Then you realize that it sucks.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    12. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by toetagger1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hey, wait a minute!

      Claiming that stability with an OS is something to brag about is stupid! That should be an inherrent task of an OS. You don't go around selling cars saying that it starts every time you try, and never randomly turns off while you are driving it (nor that the windows turn blue)! The ONLY reason why you say Windows 2000 is stable is b/c it's predecessores weren't, so it looks like a big thing.

      Any windows operating system has the HUGE security issue. The only reason why we have more problems today then before is that Windows 95 and ME crashed before they could get infected (together with the fact of less broandband and internet in general). And once MS has fixed thier mistakes, they will turn around, and market that as a feat of their technology. That's like selling a car with a lock!

      Now to a point where I agree with you: I've been running Windows 2000 since the day it was released as well, and I have regreted every day of it. However, it still wasn't enough to make me switch permanently to Linux. But that's due to my extreme lazyness.

      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    13. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2000 runs the games I know and love just fine. If a game runs on XP and not 2000, I'll skip it. The default XP interface is too crappy for me.

    14. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think win2k is that great.
      Anectdote: recently tried upgrading a dell machine with more (dell approved memory). everything looked fine, bios showed additional memory, booting linux from a floppy, linux recognized, and was able to use the extra memory, win2k failed to even see the memory and doggedly continued to insist on the original amount of memory.

      calls to dell yielded (after several to and fro exchanges about the problem, and me trying several things, including bios upgrades, under dells instructions) the following piece of advice:

      reinstall win2k from the oem disk set

      big help, needless to say I was not prepared to spend what would probably have been a week to reinstall the o/s plus all of the applications which i have on there.

      So my opinion of win2k took a dive after this incident

    15. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by jrockway · · Score: 3, Funny

      My friends Deb and Ian saved me $189 too. And I don't even have to be 4 years out of date (hell even XP is ooooold). And I get all the software too.

      --
      My other car is first.
    16. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, the office PCs here are Win2K too. Everything "just works" 95% of the time. But you manage them. The machines I dealt to yesterday were looked after by one peoeple who didn't "manage" them, just used them. What I'm saying is that Windows machines - without help from professionals - aren't as user-proof as they are made out to be.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    17. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, because when you use a Mac, even if you're stoned, you'll get high grades.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    18. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, and Linux boxen don't shit themselves? They do. They've done it to me.

      And to avoid zealots, I'm posting anonymously now.

    19. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by darkpurpleblob · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Remote desktop connection makes gives me access to my machine from anywhere in the company. Particularly useful when helping someone out and I need to refer to something on my machine (and I no longer have to go find a VNC client to run as everyone else has XP and the remote desktop client installed).

    20. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I must concur - I've used many different operating systems and flavours thereof and the best I'd always felt towards them was either tolerance or a sense of achievement.

      I hated Win98, it was buggy, crash prone and really not all that easy to use. 2K's stability was a breath of fresh air but it still took a fair bit of messing around to make hardware play nicely or install 'obscure program X'. XP was better with support for hardware and software as well as being pretty stable although nothing to get excited about (uptime measured in days before memory hogging caused a reboot) but the annoying 'helpers' and a habit of hiding what was under the hood meant the initially shallow learning curve hit a brick wall - when the system ran I tolerated it as something to run my programs, when it didn't run it was fixable although frustrating.

      Of the various Linux distros I tried Mandrake was my favourite, but software installation had a habit of breaking things for unknown reasons and although the command line gave me a nice fine grained control over fixing these issues, relief was all I felt after spending hours hunting down that stray symbol breaking the entire shell script. The GUI tools for administration all worked but I often found myself turning back to CLI for more control which would then confuse the options in the GUI panels. Once the machine was working it was very fast and very stable, but I always dreaded the next problem and thinking of how long it might take to fix, and lets face it, Linux isn't known for it's looks - the GUI was inconsistent at best and unusable at worst.

      Recently I purchased a Mac - Panther is extremely quick, software installs perfectly every time simply by dragging and dropping, the configuration GUIs are perfectly and logically laid out, the CLI is still fully featured and perfectly integrated and above all that it's blazingly fast, solid as a rock and amazing looking. Even the third party software seems more polished than Windows nagware or functional but half-finished Linux projects.

      Each OS has it's place, but for day-to-day desktop use I know what I'll be using for the forseeable future.

    21. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      IMHO the default XP interface is the only good M$ did for years
      not that i use windows for much
      except to start the SAP logon at work :p

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    22. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Even so, I've had things crash Win2k without fail (Dungeon Keeper 2 springs immediately to mind) that work absolutely fine under XP. Also, XP Pro comes with remote desktop server built-in, while 2k Pro does not, and there's no way I was shelling out for 2k Server.

    23. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I never even mentioned Linux in my post. Another AC posting tripe again.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    24. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      I agree only I take it one step further back: I have a system on 98SE. I consider it one of my most stable boxes. But, that particular box IS NOT ON THE NET! I use it for many stand-alone apps. When I need to copy files to it, I will do either of 2 things: Copy via IPX from another Windows box (seldom), or, copy from a Mac using Appletalk on the Mac and an older (obsolete, bought out, and no longer available... and you will get a REAL surprise if you try to access their old web page!) network package called: called COPSTALK. Since most all the current crop of viri worms and other headaches deal with Internet, email or other online activities I have found this beast a perfectly stable platform for a variety of activities. For INTERNET access I rely on various penguin distros, BSD or OS X.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    25. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by cayce · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you. But there's a problem with Windows 2000, it doesn't run a lot of games properly.

      Basically I only install Windows XP in computers that are going to be use for gaming. Anything else I still setup windows 2000. It is by far more stable (and faster) than XP.

    26. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total FUD - I support 3000 PCs (mix of Dells, IBMs and Compaqs) at the World HQ for the largest bulldozer company...all run W2K Pro and are subject to extensive daily use. I can say that in three years since implementing 2000 we have had virtually no stability problems. I wouldn't begin to try and push Linux on an office this size without expecting major problems with user education. Hatred of MS products is one thing; real-world experience simply does not support the assertion.

    27. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by isomeme · · Score: 1

      I agree. I run 2000 Pro on my desktop system at home, and it's rock-solid and easy to manage. I often wonder why more people don't use it; unless you're into PC games or have cost as a primary concern, there's no better non-ideology-based choice, in my view.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    28. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Informative

      There sure are a lot of ACs posting this line. So far you've all missed the point. I'm not saying Windows is crap! I'm saying it's a very good business desktop but 2K and XP are not a bulletproof solution for all users.

      Firstly, I have not mentioned Linux at all, so your insecurities are shining rather brightly.

      Secondly, you're all talking about business environments with support and systems management available. I'm talking about single systems and small networks without full time "professional" management. I think Win2K is pretty good and generally quite stable, but people who trump Windows 2K or XP as being the shiznit for clueless users are wrong. Yesterday I fixed 3 machines that clueless users has managed to render inoperable in their daily usage. Two suffered significant filesystem corruption, all three suffered from application and registry problems. That is not the hallmark of a rock-solid OS.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    29. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O man stop it, seriously.
      Sure it works fine and blah blah blah blah

      But the minute you start using the OS for more then only your office applications it breaks; ALWAYS. It may be the installation of codecs, some advanced programs (VMware, Driverstudio....), drivers etc etc. It just breaks, and there is no log whatsoever to see what ACTUALLY goes wrong, no you have to guess that!
      Im not even getting into fixing the problem here..

    30. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by yppiz · · Score: 1

      Yes, the parent is flamebait, but it's also true. I use Windows 2000, Windows XP Pro, and Mac OS X extensively (home, work, and second home machine).

      Windows 2000 and XP are quite stable. I can rely on them. But the UI decisions, particularly the organization of the menus, the system configuration panels, and especially the network configuration panels, is insane. XP is marginally better than 2000 in these areas.

      Mac OS X is also quite stable. But the UI decisions - the Finder menu, Preferences panel, and network config elements, are fairly well organized. Not perfect, but much more logical and usable than XP or 2k.

      --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

    31. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I moved my computers to Windows XP Pro because I liked the remote desktop feature.

      1984 called from a an MIT phone number. It wants its network transparent GUI back.

    32. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      4 years out of date? What's out of date about W2K? Or maybe, are you one of those people who like to re-install a new OS every 6 months for fun? Those of us who actually *do* things with our computers, do NOT want to be re-installing OS's every few months, or even every few years. W2K runs my business just fine, without having to re-install.

    33. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that those that tout Windows as being "all that" seem to recommend a clean reinstall as an acceptable way of fixing them too...

      The first time I heard this when I was having problems with a Windows install I was flabbergasted. I thought he was kidding, and he said he did it once a month. I told him I was glad I wasn't his mechanic since I wouldn't want to take out and reinstall his engine every month.

      (This was '97 an we were discussing 95 obviously, but it's essentially still regarded as a valid fix for all versions.)

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    34. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I have that book, very awesome read. I went looking a few months ago and didn't find it, but I was wondering if anyone knew if they made an "Inside Windows XP" or "Inside Windows Server 2003" from the same authors.

      Oh, BTW, if you think Windows 2000 is great and detest the idea of upgrading to Windows XP, give Windows Server 2003 a chance as your desktop. It installs without themes, but gives you 90% of the stuff that makes XP worth upgrading to (including the Windows '98 compatibility mentioned earlier in the thread). The only thing it misses (unless you use a hack) is System Restore. But you get Volume Shadow Copy which is pretty damn nice in itself.

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    35. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the joke. Deb and Ian were the founders of the Debian GNU/Linux project.

      Although, it is kind of funny, because the "Stable" version of Debian is pretty out of date (but extremely stable). Here, I run "Unstable" or "Sid", which is great for a desktop, as every application is bleeding edge, so I get features like MSN buddy icons and file transfers in GAIM (which wasn't supported in earlier versions).

      You should never have to reinstall an OS, but Windows seems to like doing that, also charging you obscene prices for upgrades. Debian, for example, can be upgraded by simply editing your sources to point at "Testing" or "Unstable" and then typing "apt-get dist-upgrade", and viola, something as bleeding edge as you want, without paying $189 every time you want to upgrade. Hell, I dont think I even had to reboot!

    36. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      Nope - Windows XP and Windows 2003 are based off the same "stuff". Windows 2003 server is basically Windows 2000 server with enhanced Active Directory abilities/management/features. Although the title says "Inside Windows 2000", that book is good enough to give you a good idea about how Microsoft WINNT based OSes work. For e.g., why MS Windows doesn't employ a GUI like an X-Windows and how it actually implements that part (the subsystem, the VXDs, the blah). There is stuff about the POSIX and OS/2 subsystem i didn't know existed in Win2k. My only complaint was the authors didn't include a lot about Unix/Linux when making comparisions but that's just me.

    37. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For INTERNET access I rely on various penguin distros, BSD or OS X.

      To be fair, these are more Daemon distros, unless you meant "I rely on various penguin distros, or BSD or OSX.

      Anyways, what good is a computer not connected to the interweb these days?

    38. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Tezkah · · Score: 1

      "unless you're into PC games or have cost as a primary concern, there's no better non-ideology-based choice, in my view."

      Uh, isn't the most commonly heard problem is "my gamez dont workz in lunix!"? GNU/Linux, commerical unices, or *BSD is more stable (even with the lack of blue screens in 2k/XP, you get hammered by worms/virii), and secure, and with tools such as apt-get or pkg_add, very easy to manage. It isn't an "ideology based choice", unless you consider being able to have a command-line-ism as an "ideology"

    39. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      When it takes 7 minutes to reapply a ghost image to a workstation it doesn't matter what OS you are running than wasting time trying to figure out what went wrong with the machine. Unless it is more than one machine.

    40. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by JamesKPolk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Debian only stays a year or two out of date, while the developers fight harder about their copyrights than Microsoft's lawyers do.

    41. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      It shows that the OS wasn't locked down as tight as it could have been. Start playing with classified systems with operational military status and you have to start locking things down. Yes you can start using some flavour of *nix but it isn't always necessary if it's set up right.

    42. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Or maybe, are you one of those people who like to re-install a new OS every 6 months for fun? Those of us who actually *do* things with our computers, do NOT want to be re-installing OS's every few months, or even every few years.

      People who use Deb and Ian's OS never reinstall. Imagine installing Win95 and seamlessly upgrading to WinXP.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    43. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I've been running 2000 Pro since it was available, and I've put off installing XP even though I have a boxed copy of it simply because I don't see any possible benefit of switching from what's a fantastic stable yet flexible desktop OS.

      If Win2000 works for you, stick with it.

      I switched the gaming box over to WinXP because it simply made my life easier (more games work then under Win2000).

      For a laptop, however, WinXP is nicer then Win2000. WinXP handles WiFi in a much better manner then Win2000 ever did.

      XP really isn't all that different under the covers then Win2000. It does seem to do multimedia better then Win2000. We were leery of it at first on the company network, but once we learned the (slight) differences all of the new machines have been XP.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    44. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

      Yeah... that ghost image would definitely have an update copy of my work! That's a great solution for all possible situations!

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    45. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terminal Services are just a bad copy of VNC.

    46. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by alchemistkevin · · Score: 1

      This is so very true... I have been using Linux since a long time now, but I also have been using windows machines at work and I also own a machine with win xp that came with it and I really like it - it's never - repeat - NEVER crashed on me. I update my suse every few days/weeks and do the same with the windows machine - and I have never had a virus even though my machine is connected via a static ip to the net for more than 12 hours a day! - regular patching and not installing *crap* pieces of software is enough to keep the machine stable. i do not understand why do we people have to have a go at something coz it's owned by MS!!!

    47. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep your "work" on another filesystem, idiot. Who the fuck keeps documents on the system partition? Hell, they should really be on a network drive, but a seperate drive or partition on the same computer is better than nothing.

      Keep your documents & the operating system seperate, moronic jackass.

    48. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Well they say Jesus saves and makes a backup.You need two sets of cds (or dvds) 1 is a ghost image of your machine with all your special apps and the second is a regular backup of your documents (you do backup your data right?)

    49. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      "...sit down and play with Mac OS-X.

      Then you realize that it sucks."


      I would have to disagree with you. I've used OSX and enjoy it.

    50. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by PIBM · · Score: 1

      quote: (uptime measured in days before memory hogging caused a reboot)

      I guess that's not windows since I've been running apache + mysql + php on a server from 1st june to last week. I had to reboot since I was feeling that I would receive some attacks if I would not do the updates.. (Logs where starting to show unusual request trying to run scripts from forbidden locations)

      Oh yeah, the server handled in average over 700K php scripts run per day and it only got 512mb of ram ...

    51. Re:Just SP2 is Rough? by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Let me guess.

      They didn't shutdown, and just pressed the power button, right?

      Well, unless all filesystem syncrinously mounted, linux is vulnerable to that also, even with journaling your data isn't completely guaranteed if the right timing and function calls against your files happen...

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
  10. Slipstreamed installs work fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slipstreamed installs work fine.

  11. Play the odds! by gringo_john · · Score: 4, Funny
    Hey, the article doesn't mention that 2 out of 5 machines do survive the SP2 patch.

    That's 40% and pretty decent for M$.

    1. Re:Play the odds! by chamblah · · Score: 1

      Be original M$

    2. Re:Play the odds! by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      And I'm one of them. Woot! Heading to Vegas, I'm on a lucky streak!

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Various hacks?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    and had to have both SP1 and SP2 removed via various hacks supplied by Microsoft

    GNU/Linux!!!

    1. Re:Various hacks?! by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      various hacks

      AKA Microsoft's entire product line.

  14. Microsoft magic numbers by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Joking aside, there's some truth behind Microsoft and their versions. One of the developer's had a blog that talked about it in detail.

    Essentially, version 1.0 is a best guess at what the customer wants. Version 2.0 is started even before the customer sees the 1.0 version. Finally, customer feedback is incorporated into the 3.0 version and things might actually start getting useful.

    1. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by selderrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      the biggest problem is that thay fail allready at step 1 : they really don't know what customers want. If they did, horrors such as clippy would never have existed.

    2. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by DA-MAN · · Score: 4, Funny

      Essentially, version 1.0 is a best guess at what the customer wants. Version 2.0 is started even before the customer sees the 1.0 version. Finally, customer feedback is incorporated into the 3.0 version and things might actually start getting useful.

      Damn, they're at over 2003 tries and still can't build a server not owned by a script kiddie worm overnight. . .

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    3. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by chmilar · · Score: 3, Funny
      Clippy only exists because Bill wanted to get into Melinda's pants.

      Fact-Index entry.

      --
      Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
    4. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you know without trying? Clippy is gone now. Happy?

    5. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clippy is gone now. Happy?

      No, because the horrible memory of Clippy is forever etched into my memory, at least until someone invents a selective memory-erasing technique.

    6. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like your default Linux install. Name a flavor.

    7. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by michrech · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, because the horrible memory of Clippy is forever etched into my memory, at least until someone invents a selective memory-erasing technique.

      I'll go get my hammer.. :)

      --
      bork bork bork!
    8. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ya, know, I never got this. People complain about Clippy (yes, I hated the idea too, but not the point), but no one complains about that star thing in OpenOffice...

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    9. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially, version 1.0 is a best guess at what the customer wants.

      More like: what they can get away with.

    10. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by zogger · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have to be the only person here to never have seen this clippy thing.

      I must be blessed

    11. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Thornkin · · Score: 1

      Read the Innovator's Dilemma. It says to do exactly that. You can never understand the customer or market need before you ship the product. The best thing to do is ship a best guess and then correct from there.
      I doubt that Microsoft does much work on v2.0 before the customers start giving feedback. They probably, like most other companies, start right when they ship 1.0.

    12. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Actually, your closer to the truth than you may think. The part of software development that people dont see are the versions .99-RC2, .99-RC1, .98, .97 ad nasuem... The customer gets 1.0.

      There have been literaly thousands of builds of windows. Very few get shipped to the customer.

      The same holds true with the linux kernel. Test kernels,Very few will ever see one of them up and running. Its that way with all software.

    13. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad OO.o implements a clipy clone (that stupid light bulb enabled by default) what were they thinking.

    14. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they thought that a bright shining light bult instead of a paper clip was a bright idea.

    15. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except that a lot of people actually do use Clippy, at least in my experience.

      When I first started working at my current job, we were loading the Office assistant as part of the default Office installation. When we got new computers and I had to create a new Ghost image for them, I took the Office assistant out of the default install since, of course, "nobody uses it". We received so many calls from users who, upon using their new systems for the first time, could not figure out how to get the dog/globe/little man to appear when they were typing documents. We got more of these calls than for any real problems associated the change.

      I would say that Microsoft knows its customers better than you do.

    16. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by SlashdotLemming · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the biggest problem is that thay fail allready at step 1

      What is your criteria for failure? Most of company's products control majority of market share and leader is richest man in world?

      What is success?

    17. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Clippy only exists because Bill wanted to get into Melinda's pants.

      No, Clippy is a watered down version of what the MS research guys dreamed up - it was so accurate in predicting what users were doing that it wigged them out.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    18. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you don't have any chest hairs yet?

    19. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by zogger · · Score: 1

      I've really never seen it. Got plenty of hairs, most of them are grey now, just never been much of a microsoft user. I have seen a lot of derisive references to it, but have never seen it myself. Perhaps it's a MS help feature that has to be activated or something, but I haven't seen it pop up whenever I have used windows before. That's about as clear as I can be on that subject. I think it's amusing, that's all.

    20. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clippy was a lot less intrusive and had an "edge" to his help. The default character was the einstein guy during the early designs. People loved the clippy character because it semi-insulted the reader when giving advice. What seemed to happen is that clippy became the default icon, but they took all the "fight" outta him.

    21. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by malfunct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clippy was written to save microsoft money on its tech support costs. It worked amazingly. It would have been a far better product if they had the time and money to fully implement it instead of only the beginner API. The full design included an intermediate and advanced level that would have annoyed the normal /. users far less than the beginner only version we got ot see. As it is clippy is an astounding success, most /. readers just happen to be out of the target audience which is why clippy could be turned off.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    22. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by westlake · · Score: 1
      Except that a lot of people actually do use Clippy

      Links seems to add a welcome touch of a color and animation on an otherwise static desktop, and no harm done if she draws users into making better use of the Windows help system.

    23. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      That's actually true. Users are annoyingly undemanding sometimes. I'll implement something and get "wow I've been waiting for a feature like that" responses... but *nobody* has actually asked me to do it, it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

      OTOH once you've implemented something everyone suddenly gets an opinion about it, and it takes another version to make as many people as possible happy... hence you're at 3.0 before it works.

    24. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Step 1 collect underpants. Step 3 profit."

    25. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by ncaHammer · · Score: 1
      the biggest problem is that thay fail allready at step 1
      I dont think that this is a big problem. For example

      1. Manage MS-Bob project
      2. Fail (big time flop)
      3. ???
      4. Marry BG
      5. Profit!
    26. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clippy (v.SP2)...

      Hello, It looks like you are writing a slashdot comment ["Get help with writing slashdot comment" - click] ...

      STOP 0x0000000A EAX=00 ....

    27. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      It would have been a far better product if they had the time and money

      Yes, if only Microsoft has more time and ... what was that second thing you said?

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    28. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Thats because no one uses open office

    29. Re:Microsoft magic numbers by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      Cites?

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
  15. You gotta love it by Rementis · · Score: 0

    I hope when SP2 finally comes out it's a huge failure.

  16. One more for the anecdotes.. by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Installed a beta of SP2 maybe 2-3 months ago. Worked like a charm, and the new firewall is nice.

    1. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by smf.ack · · Score: 1

      I installed SP2 RC2 a couple of monthes ago on my laptop and have been using it daily ever since with no problems

    2. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by JVert · · Score: 4, Funny

      I installed SP2 RC2 and my wife left me.

      Fucking softare...

    3. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I installed SP2 RC1 on my machine when it first came out and it worked great. I have since upgraded to SP2 RC2 and also upgraded the machines of about 10 friends to SP2 RC2 without any problems at all. These are all systems with varying specs.. for instance mine is an Athlon XP, and I also put it on a P3 500, P4 2.2Ghz... But I have not had a single problem with any of them.

    4. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "also upgraded the machines of about 10 friends to SP2 RC2"

      Just as a curiosity, why are you upgrading other peoples' machines with a Release Candidate?

      You like living dangerously or losing friends?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they also fix the explorer crashes that always happen when it starts making thumbnails of movies over the network?

      Bah somebody remind me how to turn this over-obsolete feature off.... please

    6. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as a curiosity, why are you upgrading other peoples' machines with a Release Candidate?

      You like living dangerously or losing friends?


      A couple friends asked me to install it.. and I did so after installing it on my own machine (without any problems). The fact that it adds a nice firewall, popup blocker, and also fixes alot of problems makes it a no brainer. Obviously I backed up the necessary information before doing so, but if you really think that installing the Release Candidate is some way of "living dangerously", then you are either naive or just a MS hater.

    7. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Me too, I don't see how all these people that are supposedly skillful with computers can't keep a Windows installation in line, it's not that hard.

    8. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I installed SP2 RC2 and my wife left me.

      Fucking software..."

      If it's fucking software, what do you need a wife for?

    9. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      But if the game precluded cannons, and one player decided to break the rule, wouldn't it ruin the game for everyone?

      Or as I say on my site, One aspiring tyrant is all that is required to destroy a utopia.

      -Peter

    10. Re:One more for the anecdotes.. by sava · · Score: 1

      So since your wife left you, you are fucking software instead? C'mon man, the 'Net is full of stores dealing inflatable Barbaras!

      --
      //SaVa
  17. Re:Look at the cute kitten! by Professor+S.+Brown · · Score: 0

    Its cute now, but that cat is about two claw both their faces clean off!

    --
    Shitram Brown, PhD
    Professor of Mathematics
  18. I hope it sucks horribly by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1, Troll

    I for one hope SP2 is the second to last nail in the coffin for microsoft. We cant count on our government to break up the convicted monopoly, im hoping they will run themselves into the ground.

    I think the best case scenario for EVERYONE involved but microsoft is for SP2 to have even more severe security vulnerabilities and instabilities than the current incarnation.

    I generally can't stand script kiddies, and crackers, but I for one hope groups already have prototype exploits for SP2 waiting for release. Nobody should trust a windows system for anything remotely important, and I hope SOMETHING will open the non-slashdot communitys's eyes.

    --
    "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    1. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by raistphrk · · Score: 1

      Ya know, as much as I dislike Microsoft, wishing that the OS gets hacked doesn't help ANY of us.

      If, as you hope, thousands (or millions) of XP machines get compromised, you're going to have enormous bot armies at the disposal of a few crackers. That is going to be an absolute mess. It would be one thing if microsoft.com was getting hit by a DDoS, but what if the DNS root servers get hit? What if kernel.org is the target of a script kiddie? For those of us on cable modems, it sure will suck when all our bandwidth is getting eaten up by the bot armies next door.

      Seriously. I wish a lot of nasty things on Microsoft, but that's just going to create a pain in the ass for all of us. I want to see Microsoft out of the public sector, but if Microsoft actually starts improving their product, and perhaps even listening to its users, that'll be a good thing.

    2. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I think the best case scenario for EVERYONE involved but microsoft is for SP2 to have even more severe security vulnerabilities and instabilities than the current incarnation.

      No, the BEST scienrio is for WinXP to break every insecure POS program out there, and for MS to discontinue support for Win2k (or patch it a'la WinXP.)

      Nobody should trust a windows system for anything remotely important, and I hope SOMETHING will open the non-slashdot communitys's eyes.

      A properly configured windows system can handle a good number of jobs as well as the same hardware running Linux. For lighter-duty jobs (the type that you would have X running all the time on if you had Linux), Windows Server can handle the job just fine.

    3. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and for MS to discontinue support for Win2k

      WTF?! Discontinue support for the best OS ever produced by MS?!

      Better to discontinue XP in that case.

    4. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I understand that it would suck, I depsise windows worms as much as the next guy (They clog up our logs, networks and phone lines). But I think that if directly after SP2 another code red esque worm hit big it would be a very lage wake-up call for the general public. Yes it would be a pain in the ass in the short term though Im not advocating the creation of such a worm, or trying to create one myself. Im just saying I wouldent shed any tears. Alternatively I would love for microsoft to actually patch XP to be a decent product worth the money they charge for it. Because that would solve half of my beefs with them. I just dont think thats gonna be possible with just a service pack. And with longhorn moving the way of DRM I dont think any windows based system will ever become a decent product. I know im gonna lose some karma on this post and the last one, but this is just how I feel, it may be wrong and slightly OT. Mod me down if you must.

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    5. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by JVert · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could hope that someone develops software that is easier and has more features?

      Crippling what users currently have so they will follow you is pretty fucked up.

      My god do you REALIZE what you are saying?

    6. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by JVert · · Score: 1

      You are not a linux advocate.

      You are a windows basher.

      The biggest security update microsoft has taken with SP2 is the firewall. They have not done this because it makes the computer more difficult to run. Windows softare is now harder to use, which is a good thing in your mind because it makes other software look easier.

      I shall secretly bomb your islands source of coconuts and declare war because you have no coconuts. Does this at all sounds a little fuckingnuts?

    7. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So have you seen first-hand what this new service pack does? Probably not. It provides great new firewall features and also locks down IE so its not as wide open to ActiveX holes. Also the built-in popup blocker for IE is great.

      Seriously, how does shit like this get modded up? Oh thats right, if you provide some FUD about DRM (what a great acronym to mention for a karma whore like yourself) and how this service pack will open them up to more code red attacks, you will succeed!

    8. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear sir.
      I have heard of this open source software and would like to move away from my windows xp installation. Could you please send me a link to where I can download this linux. I had a friend try and show me what linux was, To my suprise this linux BROKE MY FUCKING CD-ROM DRIVE! He said oh, you must have a drive that does not follow standards. I pulled the drive out thew my friend out on the street, he said "hey wait I want my CD" so I chucked the drive at him with the CD inside and watched it hit his head breaking his bill gates style glassess.
      After that I turned my computer back on, watched my favorite episode of ATHF using Microsoft Windows Media Center that took me 10 minutes to configure using a remote control. And wacked off to some free porno... I can't believe, today was a good day.

      But you said you have something better?

    9. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta be kidding.

      I hear IT folks whine all the time about Microsoft crap, but *they never switch*. Why? Because it costs WAY too much to take all your data and move it into Mac or Linux, you have to update your crap hardware that only runs with microsoft, you have to buy or rewrite much of your software all over again (especially if you have lots of custom ASP stuff, etc), you have to retrain your employees, you have deal with all the compatibility problems with IE-only sites and business partners who are 100% microsoft.

      Microsoft has a lock on the business world and they know it. You know it. I know it. Just accept it.

    10. Re:I hope it sucks horribly by Geekenstein · · Score: 1

      Quick note. The term "convicted monopoly" is wrong. There is NOTHING WRONG with being a monopoly. Abusing that monopoly to suppress your competition, however, a crime.

      Thank you, drive through.

  19. Worked for me... by normal_guy · · Score: 1

    Don't know what happened to these guys, but it worked just as smoothly for me as my last KDE upgrade. You can try it too! That's a beta Windows Update site.

    --

    Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
  20. It worked here. by RetiredHacker · · Score: 1

    Three of three machines updated
    to SP2 RC2 with zero problems.

    100% success rate.

    --
    ... Retired Hacker
    1. Re:It worked here. by P1 · · Score: 1

      try running something from a network share. If it's not digitally signed (not much is) you get a %^*&%$* message asking your permission each and every time. Please feel free to enlighten me if you know how to get around this.

    2. Re:It worked here. by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      Please feel free to enlighten me if you know how to get around this.

      I would probably start by digitally signing whatever it is that I want to share.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    3. Re:It worked here. by JVert · · Score: 1

      I'm not on a sp2 computer but I bet you can change it from your internet options. look for "run unsigned programs" and you should have a 3 radio "enable/prompt/disable" or something like that.

    4. Re:It worked here. by P1 · · Score: 1

      I looked at internet options under 'security' (custom level) and under 'advanced' and didn't see that choice. thanks for the try, it's appreciated.

  21. Uh by coffee+addict · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    //Begin "Windows sucks I use Linux" posts...

    1. Re:Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Slashdot and the user's experience.

      n00b: "Windows sucks I use Linux!!"
      seasoned: "//Begin "Windows sucks I use Linux" posts..."
      false veteran: "tell something we don't know!" (this post)
      veteran: useful posts
      damn old: gets tired of the game and now just lurks (but shows up in the eventual "Low UID" thread)

  22. Was it really the service pack? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't see how they could know it was the service pack that caused the machine to fail. I just did a random test here in my office. I shut down everyone's computer, and 3 out of 5 failed to come back up again. This is normal operation, not something new introduced by the service pack.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:Was it really the service pack? by volteface · · Score: 1

      If 3 out of 5 machines failed to boot, something is wrong with them. Boot failure is not normal operation... at least not for me. My machine boots fine every time.

    2. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope that was a joke...or those are some purtty crappy installations you've got there.

    3. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just did a random test here in my office. I shut down everyone's computer, and 3 out of 5 failed to come back up again.
      Poltergeist, maybe?

    4. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Konowl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know humour can be hard to detect on the net... but man... you really missed the boat.

    5. Re:Was it really the service pack? by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 0

      Did you RTFA at all? (Of course not, this is /. ;) )

      Hell yes it was the service pack! Three friggin bluescreens that cause more havoc than Joe Sixpack would know how to remedy. While MS help was able to help them fix their problems, how many of your most average users can run a DOS command line and then fix the registry?

      One would think MS would make this rollover as simple as possible, but with this, and the fact that SP1 must be reinstalled, along with various hardware devices, they may as well call in the tech support cavalry on this one....

      "Microsoft's objective with Windows XP SP2 is to make it easier for end users to configure and manage security resources via new functionality and stronger security settings. "

      Heh...easier my ass...Make good backups and/or switch to Linux, and godspeed WinXP users who plan to update

      As for your systems, call for help if three out of five don't come back....Service pack or no service pack-something is very very screwy there....

      -thewldisntenuff

    6. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised any of them came back up after you "Shut Down". I think you'll have better luck with the "Restart" option.

    7. Re:Was it really the service pack? by HungSquirrel · · Score: 1

      It does make it easier for complete noobs to secure their systems. However that says nothing for stability. In my case, I installed SP2RC2 with no problems, but I hardly ever boot into Windows anyway now.

      --
      $ whatis themeaningoflife
      themeaningoflife: not found
    8. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty sad if you have hardware that fails on 3 out of 5 boots. On the other hand I would guess these spyware infested machines will have lots of problems when the service pack applies. That interferes with so much and to apply a SP to a hosed system is gonna be a nightmare.

      What others also fail to mention is this RC has been out for a quite a long time. What has it been, a month now? Lots of bugs have been fixed by then.

    9. Re:Was it really the service pack? by rainwater · · Score: 1

      Actually, since the systems were most likely located in one central location, they probably contained many of the same software packages. Its possible that the configuration they had conflicted with the SP2 install. That doesn't mean it is SP2's fault. Maybe the software just doesn't work with SP2?

    10. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
      3 out of 5 failed to come back up again.

      Correct, that's not SP2. That's "Dell Quality" doing the trick there.

      I'd turn my Mac off to try that test, but I don't know where the button is because I've never had to turn it off. :(

    11. Re:Was it really the service pack? by TheNME · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's you who doesn't realize that your humor is so boring that it's not funny?

      --
      Windows sux. Am I cool now?
    12. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      An OS Service Pack is supposed to fix problems with the OS and possibly add additional features.

      It is not supposed to break applications.

      Period.

      If it does, it is defective and needs to be recalled and fixed.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    13. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I believe that's normal for XP. Pretty f'ing sad, isn't it.

    14. Re:Was it really the service pack? by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      You work at the Microsoft, right?

      --
      Store with salt
    15. Re:Was it really the service pack? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      I'll take exception to that statement. If the OS has a security bug that leads to (eg) arbitrary root (or administrator) priviliges for an unpriviliged user, and an application takes advantage of this to not require a user to be an admin to perform functions that are otherwise reserved for priviliged users, then it's a security bug, and patching it is the right thing to do even if it breaks some applications. Period.

      Maintaining 100% reverse compatibility is not always the right solution. Some times you have to amputate a growth even if it takes an arm with it.

    16. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      This is referred to as a "tautology".

      The sun also rises in the East.

      Next obvious statement.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    17. Re:Was it really the service pack? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which comment you're referring to as tautology, but I have to assume that you're referring to the comment about amputating a growth. This may be tautological, but it's also referred to as a moral or a summary example. It's a common and effective form of rhetoric to first rebut a statement with a topical demonstration of an example that voids the original premis; then summarize the underlying principle in the scope of a much shorter example (presented as a truism) which demonstrates the principle itself on another topic. The overall effect being a demonstration that the original premis is wrong, and it's wrong in more than just the specific example presented; instead it's incorrect across a wide berth of similar situations.

      However, rebutting my statement based on a tautology present in it is a logical fallacy known as Style Over Substance. You don't address the logic in the statements I made, rather you attack the manner in which they were delivered. Even if delivered poorly, their truth and applicability aren't affected.

      Ultimately it remains that OS service packs serve a greater purpose than maintaining reverse compatibility: they fix bugs on the OS level (just as appliation service packs address bugs on the application level). If these bugs are being taken advantage of by an application and the application now breaks, that is still desirable behavior on the part of the OS service pack.

      In this case the approach Microsoft took to many of the areas which they are fixing in this service pack was wrong initially. They incorrectly advised developers to use tools that have since been proven impossible to appropriately secure. It's very unfortunate that fixing these issues will kneecap many existing applications, but I for one am very glad Microsoft has decided to address the underlying issues despite the pain it'll cause.

    18. Re:Was it really the service pack? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Verbose, too.

      Logical? Hah!

      Tautology. A logical statement in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise.

      The point of pointing out the tautology is exactly my point: service packs are intended to fix things, not break them. You stated that apps that are insecure should be broken. My point is that this is obvious, but that MS service packs tend to break things that are not supposed to break in the course of trying to fix things.

      This point clearly eluded your mind which was apparently occupied elsewhere - such as with the desire to demonstrate your erudition and cluelessness.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    19. Re:Was it really the service pack? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Style over substance. Verbosity doesn't affect validity.

      Your definition of tautology didn't quite line up with the mine, which was just needless repetition. I suspected your definition and mine didn't line up, which is why I looked it up, and why I linked dictionary.com.

      Tautology
      1.
      a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
      b. An instance of such repetition.
      2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

      But let's accept the definition you deliver which is presented later in the page as a tertiary definition: "A repetition of the same meaning in different words; needless repetition of an idea in different words or phrases; a representation of anything as the cause, condition, or consequence of itself..."

      You correctly imply that insecure apps *should* have their reliance on insecurity broken. Since you and I agree that this is correct behavior, you can only be talking about the service pack unintentionally breaking functionality (bugs in the service pack). Since the service pack is still in release candidate status, it's meaningless to debate this. That's the purpose of release candidates. Microsoft is correctly pushing back the release date until these issues can be addressed. It's not appropriate to criticise them for this behavior since it is desirable (unless it was done on a final release).

      I'm not sure what your original point was now when bathed in the light of your further commentary. I assume you're smart enough to not criticise bugs in pre-release code, but you state you're not criticising functionality intentionally broken to address security concerns, so perhaps there's a third classification of issue which I'm not grasping in my eruditious cluelessness.

  23. So that's how they do it.... by Zemplar · · Score: 0

    Keeping 60% from coming back up? So that's what even Microsoft even has to do to secure their OS!!

  24. Installed fine for me by raistphrk · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've got FreeBSD and Windows XP SP 2 running side-by-side. I installed various incarnations of SP 2, from the original technical preview, to the current release candidate. I just installed the newest private build from Microsoft yesterday. When I was using the technical preview, a lot of software - especially CD and DVD burning software - was completely borked. Now things seem to be working better.

    The improvements to Internet Explorer are really the main thing that caught my attention. Microsoft finally wisened up and started turning features like ActiveX off by default, and now has permissions completely locked down for the local computer. All I can say is, THANK GOD.

    I normally have a lot of criticism for Microsoft, but this service pack is one of the few Windows builds I have to compliment them on. They've made a lot of steps forward in terms of security. However, as long as they rely on a complex, feature-filled package by default, we're going to see security holes in the default installations of Windows.

    The real test is going to be when we roll this out hardcore at the office. Since the company has a lot of DCOM applications, I suspect many of them will break. This isn't really anything new to Linux and Unix users; when you install new libraries, you often have to recompile binaries for compatibility. However, in Windows enterprises, this is going to amount to absolute chaos - especially given that most businesses don't have access to source code to recompile.

    This service pack is a good baby step in a long journey. In the meantime, I'm going to be busy dealing with broken applications.

    1. Re:Installed fine for me by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Huh? What's this about recompiling?

      Linux libraries work exactly the same as Windows variants, except that you can install more than one version of the same library at the same time.

      Of course, a library can also change in an incompatible way, but programmers bump the major version, so that the old version and the apps linked against it can be kept, and I've never seen it done for security/bug fixes.

    2. Re:Installed fine for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      DCOM is "middleware", so a policy change in how it works could break applications. Basically the DCOM library itself is changing in an incompatible way, which may require the application libraries to be updated.

    3. Re:Installed fine for me by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft finally wisened up and started turning features ... They've made a lot of steps forward in terms of security.

      Could someone elaborate on how making these much heralded "settings changes" can be characterized as "a lot of steps forward." I know an argument can be made with respect to the mitigating widespread problems on the internet, but it seems to me that if I habitually leave my car door unlocked (doncha just love car analogies) and my car is regularly vandalised, how does changing my habits and locking my car imply that my car is secure, or suggest anything other than simply that I'm less of an idiot than I once was.

      The folks at Mercedes would readily tell me my car's security mechanisms are inadequate. My girlfriend, I'm sure, would vouch that I'm just as much an idiot as before, but she doesn't notice it as much.

    4. Re:Installed fine for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OS itself can be made very secure. The issue like you pointed out is NO ONE takes these measures to be secure. They laugh it off and yell at Microsoft.

      By changing these default settings to force you to make yourself insecure it's putting the user at fault rather than Microsoft. It also prevents many pieces of spyware from auto-installing and viruses from exploting in email. Since we can't stop stupid people, won't cutoff their isp access, or kill them the only choice we have is to secure them with a service pack.

      If the viruses can't execute that's just one more layer of security we have to protect ourselves.

    5. Re:Installed fine for me by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft security sucked because it left everything wide open. Now it doesn't suck as much because it has a lot of the nastiness closed by default.

      The bottom line is that this is going to make Windows more secure than it was; MS is finally taking some decent steps towards locking down their systems. That is an improvement and yes, it is taking steps forward.

    6. Re:Installed fine for me by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

      If everyone switched to another specific lock for your car, it would get broken into as much as the other did.

      Linux distributions have their security flaws too. Just because they're not ever reported on Slashdot doesn't mean they're not out there. Give Linux and its applications the amazingly widespread usage of Windows and you'll see just as many fuck-ups coming out.

      The difference, and the source of valid criticism, is the speed at which Microsoft addresses these issues. But to be fair, it looks like they have been pouring their resources into SP2 and making something rock-solid. We should at least applaud them for that. This should be a mature community and not an anti-"M$" bashing crew.

    7. Re:Installed fine for me by ttrafford · · Score: 1

      Your car will be just as secure when you lock it- you'll just have to replace the window(s) as well. :)

    8. Re:Installed fine for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig is wrong.

    9. Re:Installed fine for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, most computers aren't Mercedes, so it's more like leaving your Pinto's doors unlocked versus leaving the keys in the ignition and the engine running.

      In the first case, the worst that might happen is a bum will take residence in your car (will have to be a small bum, though). In the second case, stoner teenagers will happen upon your car and say "Dude! let's go for a ride, that would be SWEET!" and bye bye car. You should have deactivated an unused feature of the car, the engine, so that it wasn't taken for a joyride (if joy can really be had in Pinto's).

      Microsoft has traditionally left its engine running, the radio on full blast, and the a/c pumped all the way up. So at least it's attracted unwanted attention, then people might just sit next to it to listen to the data, and at worst people run off with it and use it in bank heists.
      Now the engine is turned off and the keys in your pocket. I doubt a car thief will waste time jacking your pinto, and stoners won't be attracted by the loud noise.

  25. what??? by cRueLio · · Score: 1

    i've installed SP2 RC2 on a Dell 300m, a Dell Inspiron 8000, and cheap old Dell tower and they all work. Oh, did I mention that all my computers are made by Dell? hehehehe

    Anyways, i there was no difficulty installing sp2 nor were there any bad side effects. on the contrary, wireless works better due to the new wireless connection thingy. also it has a nice built-in firewall that tells you when applications try to connect to the internet and also a security center application that helps people that aren't that good with computers (i.e. my mom) keep their computer secure.

  26. SP2 RC3 Link by Bruha · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can download RC3 here. The upgrade time is even shorter than SP2 if you do a "take over disk" method!

    1. Re:SP2 RC3 Link by danrees · · Score: 1

      These jokes really are getting old...

    2. Re:SP2 RC3 Link by overturf · · Score: 1

      Sorry, they want me to pay $$ for this so-called "RC3" you linked to.

      As a Slashdot reader, this is anathema to me; I'd much rather get the free RC2 from the article I didn't read, even if the implication of the first sentence (which I skimmed) is that it crashes my machine and costs me lots of time and effort.

  27. Well, there are other ways of looking at this... by jd · · Score: 5, Funny
    • You can't crack a machine that won't boot
    • Programs can't BSOD on you
    • You'll never need to worry about spyware again
    • The screen isn't cluttered with icons
    • There's no risk to data, if the power fails
    • It keeps the writers of SP3 employed


    Besides, Microsoft's profits are up. Why should they care about the give-away freebies, if they can make more people buy stuff from them anyway?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  28. Good... by pmsyyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good, the longer it takes for SP2 (with its popup blocker for IE) to come out, the more time alternate web browsers (Firefox) have to gain marketshare. Popup blocking is one of the biggest selling points.

    --
    Phillip
    1. Re:Good... by greymond · · Score: 1

      dude IE already has pop-up blocking...if you've installed either a Google or Yahoo toolbar. And lets not forget about NIS that has those same ad blocking features as well.

      At my work everyone has a hard on for Yahoo news and Google searching, and i've yet to see anyone here who doesn't have at least 1 of these 2 bars installed.

      So the idea that the other browsers are getting more market share "because" of IE having issues is wishful thinking - if they gain market share they will gain market share because people find them useful and effecient.

      IMO I have no reason to use anything other than Safari on my Mac and i've a feeling it'll stay that way for some time.

    2. Re:Good... by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ya but as soon as everyone moves to a browser with pop-up blocking, advertisers will move to something even more annoying and pop-up blocking will no longer be feature, just an unofficial standard.

      Hopefully Flash will take over since this extension already exists and works quite well:
      http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#flashblo ck

    3. Re:Good... by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      That's why you use a HOSTS file to stop access to known advertisement vendors (e.g. doubleclick). Or you use a real intelligent browser like Opera which allows blacklist/whitelist or full control over what filetypes run and don't run and on what web site (allowing you to block flash from say cnn.com or yahoo.com)

    4. Re:Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I'd say that Flashblock works "quite well". The first version was decent, but it had only the most basic functionality (in particular it lacked whitelisting) and couldn't block all Flash (due apparently to a Firefox bug -- there may have been a workaround available, but it wasn't implemented). I think version 2 blocked the things that version 1 didn't, and the replacement "button" looked nicer, but 1) it would display the Flash briefly before hiding it, and 2) it completely prevented playing a non-embedded Flash file in the browser (meaning I couldn't open a .swf that I had saved on my hard drive).

      Other users reported various other problems, such as Flash ceasing to function at all. I went back to version 1 for a while, then lived without either for a while. Now I use Adblock instead. Not the same kind of thing, but it does help, and they are hoping to add Flashblock-like functionality in the future.

    5. Re:Good... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like I'm going to install a Yahoo ANYTHING!

      Dude.

      The last time I tried to install a Yahoo anything, it crashed Windows 98 and I had to restore the Registry.

      And saying IE has popup blocking because of a third party software add-on is ridiculous.

      I can say IE has popup blocking on my machine - because I use Opera.

      IE is crap.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:Good... by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      why is it that when everyone views ads as annoying on websites and uses technology to avoid them, nobody really complains, yet when something like a tivo comes out, the tv networks get to bribe the FCC or whatever to prevent it from having ad blocking features? let's hope internet advertisers don't ever become a powerful lobbying group...

  29. Rollback sounds like reinstall by Eberlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    First off, I'll go ahead and acknowledge that this is a release candidate. However, the type of surgery that people had to do in order to recover from that BSOD is way more than what Joe Sixpack will be capable of.

    Reading the details of their methods, the rollback took out hardware drivers. Though they were able to recover all but one after a reboot, it probably would have been easier to just re-image the drive instead of having to jump hoops with rollback, registry edits, etc.

    Wonder if this is Windows trying to make itself more secure...in a Darwinian fashion. If this is the case, I'm not so sure I'm too much opposed to it.

    1. Re:Rollback sounds like reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JoeSixpack shouldn't be installing an RC anyway.

  30. Gah. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Now, I know that Slashdot isn't exactly a bastion of journalistic integrety.

    But couldn't you at least point out in the giant headline that this ain't 'SP2' that got tested?

    This is an unreleased, still in testing, being considered for release, but never the less, NOT released version of some software. It's EXPECTED not to work properly.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:Gah. by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Somehow I expect more from a Release Candidate version. That it was marked RC2 bugs the heck out of me.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Gah. by rifftide · · Score: 1

      Release Candidate!? Now you tell me... I thought RC2 was the encryption algorithm.

    3. Re:Gah. by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's EXPECTED not to work properly.


      actually it *is* expected to work properly, that's the idea of going from Beta -> RC. The next step in the progression is RC -> Gold, at which point it better damn well work rather than should work.

      my 2c
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:Gah. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      actually it *is* expected to work properly, that's the idea of going from Beta -> RC.
      Does this apply to the Linux kernel as well -- in which release candidates are frequently broken?
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:Gah. by JamesKPolk · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that's why at the summit this week the linux-kernel crowd finally admitted they're not even going to care about stability anymore. If you want something that works you have to go to Red Hat or SuSE or somebody.

  31. vmware by bigbadwlf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I installed SP2 on a vmware virtual machine. No problems with that yet.
    Come on, I'm not crazy.

    1. Re:vmware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REBOOT THE VM SESSION. :)

  32. works for me! posts are redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    undoubtly, there will be many "worked for me, what's wrong with you?" posts. they are redundant. it's not implied that SP2 works for no one. and given the higher level of computer competency that can be expected from /. readers, chances are perhaps better for SP2 to work correctly amongst those people...

    1. Re:works for me! posts are redundant by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but that makes the orignal article a Troll.

    2. Re:works for me! posts are redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, possesing expertise in Linux arcana does not mean that you "know about computers", nor know the slightest bit about Windows.

      There are an astonishing number of posts on Slashdot for Windows not being able to do this or configure that, most of which is a matter of clicking on something in the Control Panel, yet somehow the Slashdots experts were unable to find.

      Then, there are all the people that hack up their machines. There's a post a few up where someone refers to a Dell as "fancy-pants", as though they were anything but bland and generic, and then mentions his overclocking and kewl neon case mods. So, we have a machine stuffed full of random no-name Pacific Rim bargain bin parts, and tweaked beyond the engineering margins for 1% extra performance on a good day when everything works, and it's somehow the fault of Microsoft when an unstable hobbyist box held together with spit and twine fails to work?

      Knowledge -- or at least the willingness to screw around in pursuit thereof -- makes it easier to screw up a machine, not harder.

  33. I found a new good use for Linux :) by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    I mean, aside from the fact that Linux is my primary OS... if I get a new service pack for XP I intend to back up my XP partition via the PARTIMAGE utility. If it doesn't boot up again, whammo, restore the partition and life goes on.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:I found a new good use for Linux :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why more people don't think of this. Imaging your Windows partition is a must, and there are lots of good tools out there to do it with. There for a while I was having to restore my Windows partition once every two or three months at work. I would get the infamous BSOD Stop Errors when booting.

  34. This is an NX bit problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The service pack is leaving your computer's no-execute bit set, preventing your computer from executing. To unset your computer's no-execute bit, bang your head repeatedly against your computer while saying: "Never install an MS service pack until about 6 months after its release and always have a full backup."

  35. yeah by miseryinmotion · · Score: 1

    "The functionality that SP2 brings to the table may make many third-party security utilities--such as popup blockers and software firewalls--obsolete. That functionality may push many security ISVs to rethink their marketing strategies. "

    Great...so the unaware public will now be using security programs from the same people that brought you this wonderful program

  36. Why is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this service pack break so much?
    Do people's personal settings conflict with the service pack?
    There must be a reason. Windows installs are all the same arn't they, so why should some break and not others?

  37. Word... by nekoes · · Score: 1

    Well every computer is different... I'm running SP2 RC2 myself and ... really my windows box has never run better. It's weird. I honestly didn't expect that. I can't say that the new virus features and the firewall setting crap are all that great, but I suppose for joe windows user they'd be good guidelines to follow. Anyone else having the same success?

    --
    Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
  38. what complete bullshit by timecop · · Score: 0

    Shortly after XP SP2 release candidate came out
    I did a number of test installs inside VMWare to evaluate the new service pack. All these installs went through just fine, and I have not experienced any of the "problems" these people were talking about.

    My guess as far as why they failed is precisely this - they had old XP machines that haven't been reinstalled since before SP1 (thats what, almost 2 years or more), which were then installed with SP2, and they expected it to work? What I have done (and various other IT departments have done same, I'm sure) is SP1 was integrated into the XP install and then machines were reinstalled and reimaged. That's what I did when SP1 was released. I plan to do same thing with SP2, because installing it on top of a 2 years old XP + SP1 + filled with crap machines is just asking for trouble.

    Upcoming (it hasn't been cancelled, right?) Windows XP Reloaded will be almost same thing - XP + SP2 integrated and whatever other goodies they will throw in to make you buy it.

  39. Just wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did they need to undo the patch with a hack?

    Why not backup everything before the patching and revert to the backup if anything gets screwed up?

  40. This article considered harmful by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    This article is about a *release candidate* for SP2 still having issues.

    No kidding. A release candidate.

    I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is *ridiculous*. Does anyone think that *Linus's* release candidate kernels are problem-free?

    The only thing that bashing Microsoft for BS reasons does is damage credibility of the people doing so. Oh, in the short term, people wind up thinking "unstable old Microsoft", but when SP2 comes out and it's just another SP, people start getting a "boy who cried wolf" attitude towards those that were wrongly throwing a fit.

    1. Re:This article considered harmful by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Only the Slashtrolls are critizing. Most of the analysis is just to predict when it's going to be available. As people start to see less problems it means that it's getting closer to being released. That is all.

    2. Re:This article considered harmful by ack154 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the big issues are that it's still "rough" in general... but that they're already on to RC2 and have already delayed the release multiple times and it's still "rough". And my guess would be that if it really is still this bad, the release might get delayed yet again.

      I mean, I wouldn't expect it to be near perfect yet, but if they're on RC2, I don't think they should have this major of a problem. Then again, this is obviously not a good sample size... it just sounds bad because it was more than half of the ones that it was tested on.

    3. Re:This article considered harmful by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      you're talking about an RC, not a beta... theoretically, if no whoppers are found, this is the code they will... release.

      the fact that there are this many show stoppers in an RC is absolutely pathetic. especially the SECOND one.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    4. Re:This article considered harmful by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1


      The only thing that bashing Microsoft for BS reasons does is damage credibility of the people doing so


      You must not remember NT4 SP2 or SP6 (not 6a), or the nasties that Win2k SP1 introduced. No BS reasons at all.
      RC means "Release Candidate" which means it needs tiny tweaks --if anything--before release. Killing 60% of the test machines will take more than a tiny tweak, no?

    5. Re:This article considered harmful by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The thing to worry about isn't if it's delayed again. The thing to worry about is if it ISN'T! Assuming you use the damn thing. If you're 100% Linux, you should hope that MS releases a brown-bag SP.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:This article considered harmful by malfunct · · Score: 1
      What I really want to know is if the original poster notified microsoft of the upgrade failure and provided them with hardware list and software list so that it could be attempted to discover why 3 of 5 machines did not reboot.

      I've upgraded 5 machines myself and 100% of them succefully rebooted and have been running since I did it. In fact I started out with an early beta of SP2 on one of them and did incremental upgrades to this point without any reliability problems.

      I bet all of the non-start problems can be traced to a single piece of hardware or software that the person runs and its likely that 90% of installations (if not far more) would go off without a hitch. The nice thing to do would be to let MS know whats happening so they can solve the issue for the others affected or at least list the issue so those affected won't attempt the upgrade until there is a workaround or fix.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

  41. XP2 works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been running SP2 for over a month on 2 differnet machines and I have experience no problems. I think the best feature if that you can get driver updates through Windows Update now. I don't really care about any of the other stuff.

  42. Ironic. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it Ironic that on Slashdot that it is considered good news that Microsoft has problems fixing security on peoples system. You would think that a technical community would want all the products to run smoothly. Because with MS having no security fixes then your network traffic is full of Microsoft Crap. See this is bad news because the general community will still have all sort of security problems with there PC costing them a lot of money. It is like a Pepsi Fan being happy that a major Coca-Cola plant blew up killing hundreds of workers. I hear a lot of Slashdotters go I just use the right tool for the right job, then when they hear that MS screwed up again then they are going hooray. I would think that they will be disappointed for having a lack of stable tools.

    No I am a long timer on Slashdot, but I just wanted to point out the Irony.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously many different people participate in Slashdot threads, and different people behave differently.

      Maybe somebody somewhere writes that he/she simply uses the correct tool for the job, and somebody else, in some other post, writes somethng gloating at MS' misfortune.

      I only see a bit of poorly written self-superior slop here, no irony.

      But perhaps that's just me.

    2. Re:Ironic. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      I would think that people applaud Microsoft failures and screwups because of the distaste for Microsoft's business practices. I know my personal distaste for the company outweighs my desire to lower the number of internet threats.

      Well.. That's not entirely correct. I don't want to see Microsoft absolutely collapse. I want to see them adopt a more consumer-friendly approach to software development and close up security holes. I will admit that I think the Windows GUI is more refined than any other and i like that.. But what was my point, again? I'm lost.

    3. Re:Ironic. by 0racle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's no irony at all. Slashdot is primarily a 'We hate MS, Linux forever RAH! RAH! RAH!' community. Never expect any objectiveness about Microsoft or Linux on Slashdot.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Ironic. by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      I've been around here a long time. Most of the posters are drunk on the hateraide. They have no real experience and want to be different.

    5. Re:Ironic. by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Nah, it is just like the Democrats liking bad news because Bush is president. Bad news means the other guy loses face, thus bad news is good, good news is bad. (Republican's weren't exactly keen on good news during Clinton's term either).

      Difference in agenda is big difference. Slashdotter's no more see this as ironic, than Dems sees the irony in their current good=bad viewpoint.

    6. Re:Ironic. by JVert · · Score: 1

      is like a Pepsi Fan being happy that a major Coca-Cola plant blew up killing hundreds of workers.

      hmmm...
      Just what are you saying exactly?

    7. Re:Ironic. by ttrafford · · Score: 1
      No I am a long timer on Slashdot, but I just wanted to point out the Irony.
      It's like rain on your wedding day.
    8. Re:Ironic. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      You think everybody at MS does not celebrate whenever a vulnaribility in Linux gets found?

      Shit these people fund lawsuits against linux and lobby congress to make open source illegal. At least nobody on slashdot does anything like that.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    9. Re:Ironic. by aug24 · · Score: 1
      I can't see anywhere in the leader or in the body where people say "this is good". Plenty of people laughing and saying "we expected it", but nothing - NOTHING - saying "good".

      Anyway, stop using the word 'irony' correctly, You'll teach the Americans and then I can't take the mickey out of them!

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    10. Re:Ironic. by stor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it Ironic that on Slashdot that it is considered good news that Microsoft has problems fixing security on peoples system.

      Hmm? Who said that it was good news? It's just geek news.

      Of course it's also a great opportunity to say lame geeky anti-ms jokes. Geeks tend to do that. We also give lame geeky jabs to unix, linux, apple, emacs, lotr, star wars, games, natalie portman... you get the idea.

      I don't see anyone saying "This is good news! Time for us to capitalise on the bad situation and get more Linux into businesses!" but even if someone did, that would be just one dude...

      I'm a little tired of these "Isn't it funny how everyone on Slashdot is biased?" posts. They seem to come up for *every* MS story, irrespective of what the other posts actually say.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    11. Re:Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another graduate of the Alanis Morrisette School of Irony.

  43. It's actually SP/2 Not SP2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it's intended to be an accurate representation of your chances of getting the SP successfully installed.

  44. Still running Windows 2000 by Animats · · Score: 1
    The remaining Windows machine here runs Windows 2000. Works fine, far less hassle than XP. XP is always calling home to Microsoft for something or other.

    Everything else runs QNX or Linux. The QNX machines are solid; the Linux machine seems to need attention about once a month.

    1. Re:Still running Windows 2000 by HungSquirrel · · Score: 1

      With four service packs under its belt coupled with the fact that most of XPs security flaws are also found in 2000, I think it's safe to say that 2000 calls home to Microsoft too. But hey, once you have SP4 and all critical updates, Windows 2000 is a very stable and secure OS.

      --
      $ whatis themeaningoflife
      themeaningoflife: not found
    2. Re:Still running Windows 2000 by Animats · · Score: 1

      We don't let the Windows machine talk to the outside world much. And we stopped at SP2; the EULA for SP3 was unacceptable. That's when we really started the move away from Microsoft.

  45. Can't believe this by parryFromIndia · · Score: 1

    I am running XP Pro SP1 + SP2 on two different machines and XP Home SP1+SP2 on other machine. No problem whatsoever. Is this yet another case spreading FUD? The cases of failure seem pretty generic - not specific to any particular hardware or software setup - and I would tend to think if it occured to them, it must occur to me and many other people. Other people with SP2 - What's your experience?

  46. 2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 0

    XP is just flaky. The only machine I've seen it run smoothly on, and even then it still had problems, was a fancy-pants Dell at some office job. On my home computer, which is all overclocked and has neon and stuff, XP is a nightmare.

    Explorer.exe simply crashes, repeatedly and often, for no good reason. Less so on the Dell, but even there it did it.

    I am sticking with 2000 until whatever's past XP comes out. XP has just been too much of a headache.

    I should also add that the only unsolvable customer problems I've seen at work were both on XP machines, and couldn't be reproduced on XP boxes in our office.

    The thing that scares me the most is I'm thinking of buying a laptop, and they all come with XP now. Anybody know of a new laptop that will work with 2000? I ca live without tech support from the vendor (like when Dell won't support the computer because it's not the OS it shipped with) but some of the device drivers out there seem to somehow be XP-only, which feels like an artifical restriction.

  47. Obligatory MS bash by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Funny

    >3 out of 5 of the machines failed to come back up, and had to have both SP1 and SP2 removed via various hacks supplied by Microsoft.

    Sounds like this puppy's ready to go gold.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Obligatory MS bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That actually made me laugh... nice one.

  48. Might affect timeline for Virtual PC for Ma by chlorophyl · · Score: 1

    In related news, AppleInsider posts that Virtual PC 7.0 is delayed until October. According to the "inside-info" (which is to be taken with a grain of salt), the delay is due to the push back of Windows XP SP2 into August.

  49. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by DA-MAN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Valuable is the man who shits ram . . .

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  50. Re:No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've installed SP2 on over a dozen computers Dells, IBM, and Toshibas with no problems.

  51. Microsoft is competitive not innovative by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Micrsoft sees the worm attacks taking down systems and decided to do something about it, and thus XP SP2 was born.

    Worms took down 60% of the systems they got installed on, and now too, so does XP SP2.

    Protect yourself from the next round of worms due out in a few weeks, and install XP SP2 to take down your system before a Worm does. If your system is offline, it cannot be infected by a worm, you are protected 100%!

    Microsoft also competes with spyware/adware companies by making XP SP2 hard to uninstall as well without some clever hacks, or the uninstall program from the creator of the software.

    "We're just looking out for your best interests." an anonymous Microsoft employee is quoted as saying.

    "Warning, slippery when sarcastic!"

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Microsoft is competitive not innovative by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      worms take down 60% of XP machines

      Microsoft responds with a service pack that does the same.
      '
      Cmon microsoft? Where's the work ethic? not going for 4/5? or even 5/5?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Microsoft is competitive not innovative by Frater+219 · · Score: 1
      Protect yourself from the next round of worms due out in a few weeks, and install XP SP2 to take down your system before a Worm does. If your system is offline, it cannot be infected by a worm, you are protected 100%!
      Don't laugh quite so hard. This was, only a few years ago, the logic of the "precautionary disconnect". In order to protect Windows computers from being made unavailable by virus attacks, major corporations took their entire operations offline. That was back in 1999, when Bill Clinton was trying to bomb Osama bin Laden, but the media were touting "cyber-terrorism" as the latest threat. Ironically enough, it was two years before Code Red or Nimda showed what a worm outbreak could be like. Moreover, it was three years before spammer viruses proved that it wasn't "cyber-terrorism" but the spammers' twisted idea of "online commerce" that would cause us the greater Internet security hassle.
  52. Unfortunately, SP2 is all edges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  53. Works for me... maybe too well. by SpectralOne · · Score: 1

    Ditto what some of the prior posts said; I've found that SP2 turns a lot of the "dangerous" stuff off and turns on the Firewall. The pop-up blocker works really well (so far), I have yet to see a stray pop-up. Sometimes it blocks video playback from some sites, but they could be seen as a pop-up. From what I've read about the crash-protection changes in the SP, I think the rest of the OS community should wish SP2 was worse.. who else are we going to complain about if MS cleans up their act? I'm sure the backlash will happen anyway, Joe User is going to complain that it "breaks" all sorts of stuff because of the firewall and security settings... when in fact it's mostly doing what it should.

  54. 3 out of 5 of the machines failed to come back up by Unnngh! · · Score: 1

    So, the news is that they have a 2 out of 5 average improvement? C'mon, let's give them a hand, don't chastise them for their success!

  55. Re:works for me! posts are NOT redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The /. summary implied that SP2 RC2 would cause problems with most computers. Far from being redundant, the multiple testimonials of working SP2 installs shows that crn.coms experience was atypical. These posts aren't echoing an opinion; they are providing data on the topic.

  56. No kidding SP2 kills XP by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    Happened on 2 computers for me. XP home and XP pro. I highly recommend NOT using the automatic download and update service. It will give you grief, I promise.

    , .

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  57. Expee esspeetoo by Sunspire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure Windows XP SP2 is going to fix every known security problem, block pop-ups and make your cows give 10% more milk. But what about us non-XP customers? To this day at my company we're putting Windows 2000 on all new computers, and we're not about to change to XP anyime soon, looks more like never in fact (except for new laptops where it makes sense).

    Last time I checked W2K was still on the list of fully supported operating systems for at several years. In fact, I've got black on white that we're promised security fixes at least up till 2007. Up until now W2K and XP have recieved new patches in sync, is this about to change? As they say, Microsofts worst competitor is their own older products, maybe this is a new way of "encouraging" upgrading.

    --
    It's like deja vu all over again.
    1. Re:Expee esspeetoo by dabraun · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft releases all of the actual security patches for Win2K as well ... XPSP2 is not just a set of security patches though. Odds are that every *known* vulnerability that is fixed in XPSP2 has already had it's fix released publicly for both XP and Win2K.

      SP2 also includes tons of fixes for 'possible' vulnerabilities (things like 'ok, here's a potential buffer overrun - can't find a specific path for an outsider to get in and exploit it but we're going to fix it anyway.)

      Most importantly SP2 includes 'security features' within the OS - like new auto update functionality (pushing it to be on by default, nagging you repeatedly if you apply an update that requires a reboot and opt to reboot later), a way better firewall including firewall protection from the moment the system comes on to the net at boot time (previously there was a short window where the firewall wasn't on), popup blocking but more importantly a very strong effort to help users NOT install activex controls unless they really want them (you have to see it to understand what I mean ...) - lots of measures there surrounding avoiding spyware.

      These are all product features, not security patches - you really can't expect to get them in Win2K - they just aren't part of the product. That's not to say that some of these things might not get ported anyway - but you can't really complain if they don't ... as long as you get the actual patches for vulnerabilities.

    2. Re:Expee esspeetoo by BabyDave · · Score: 1

      One of the updates that came out last week appears in "Add/Remove Programs" as "Windows 2000 Hotfix (SP5) Q818043". Make of this what you will.

    3. Re:Expee esspeetoo by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      Wanna Bet?

      Just priced 2 dozen boxes from $BIG_TX_VENDOR, and THEY said, "We'll LOAD Win2Kpro on for you, but it'll be INVOICED as and you'll RECEIVE DISKS FOR XPpro..." So, de-facto, you can't BUY it from $BIG_TX_VENDOR actually, you can GET it, though...

      Make Plans Accordingly

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    4. Re:Expee esspeetoo by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      I run Windows 2000 on all my desktop systems (server runs Gentoo, laptop runs Mandrake), and recommend it to all the clients I build systems for. The most useful Win2k security tool I've ever found is XPCreate. Don't be fooled by it's name, it works great with Win2k. Insert your original Win2K cd, run the .cmd file, do anything special to your configuration (read the docs, you can do things like including your SATA/UATA controller's driver, installing apps automagically, and more) then run the .cmd file again.. 2 hours later you have a bootable .ISO ready to burn that includes a slipstreamed SP4 and all the latest updates and hotfixes installed already when the system comes up the first time.

      Systems installed from this CD are ok to throw on the net without a firewall (to hit up Windows Update for the remaining few patches, and get Firefox and a firewall), they don't get insta-0wned by worms like systems installed from the original media do.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    5. Re:Expee esspeetoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. If you're not buying upgrades then you're not a customer. You're an ex-customer. As a software developer I have no patience for people who call for support when they haven't spent a dime with me in three years.

  58. XP SP2 = Longhorn is bull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    that's a lot of bull

    That would make it Bullhorn

    1. Re:XP SP2 = Longhorn is bull? by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 3, Funny

      no that would make it bull Security Hardened Internet Technology

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    2. Re:XP SP2 = Longhorn is bull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LoL! Damn, I wish I had mod points!

  59. Odd it had the reverce effect for me by Cyberglich · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My pc was't working (ie and firefox crashed 3 sec affter asssesing a page. out of town and in troubble i booted to my linux partition downloaded SP2 beta and installed it and it fixed it...

  60. yeah...right.... by joeytmann · · Score: 1

    Just putting the K in Kwaulity....

    --
    Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    1. Re:yeah...right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *and* the 'K' in "Krap".

  61. Independent testing proves SP2 most secure ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    PRWIRE - Independent testing proves SP2 most secure ever.

    Microsoft is proud to announce that in independent testing conducted by CRN labs, Windows XP SP2 proved most secure windows platform ever. In 3 out of 5 cases, windows machines proved resistant to all attempts to compromise them. In 2 of 5 cases Microsoft's RapidReboot technology prevented attempts to compromise.

  62. Re:Mod Troll Down, SHEEP by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have more than 1 machine, bud, and the basic W2K install media, and lotsa hard drives lying around, so I can eventually get the failed SP4 outta there. If not, I can do a fresh install on a different drive.

    I conceed that the thread-head could be considered misleading by some, but I intended no deceit, and the overall meaning is unchanged. HAND.

  63. Recovery Console by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Recovery Console by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Now thats interesting.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  64. Re:2000 XP by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows XP, like all software, is only as good as the administrator in charge of it. I control literally HUNDREDS of Windows XP boxes as a hired gun administrator and none of them (none,zero, zip nada) have the kind of problems you describe.

    I have an overclocked Athlon at home dual booting between SuSe 9.1 and Windows XP and do not have the problems you describe.

    Windows XP Pro installed on my laptop (again dualboot to SuSe 9.1) running SP1 + SP2 and do not have the problems you describe.

    I'm not particuraly trying to be an ass, but perhaps you should stop blaming the OS and look for another cause.

    My years of experience with XP has taught me that functionally it spanks the crap out of any MS OS prior, INCLUDING Windows 2000.

  65. Machines that crashed had spyware/adware problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winserv.exe is evidence of malware problems:
    http://sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/pf/a dware.ieplu gin.html

    Generally, always a good idea to ensure system is "stable" before applying updates. Then again, for most windows systems, having a handful of malware programs installed is probably business as usual.

  66. Re:2000 XP by Joecuba · · Score: 0

    Youv'e got a virus or spyware or something. Update and run your antivirus, and download and run Ad Aware and Spybot.

  67. hmmm - weird weird by atari2600 · · Score: 1

    I've installed XP Sp2 builds from 2096 (beta) to the month old RC2 build - mostly for testing how our company's products would be affected. This installation was done on OEM machines from Sony, Dell and Compaq as well as locally assembled hardware. The number of machines that this exercise was done is about 25. I haven't had a single case of a blue screen or a machine not coming back up after installation. Lucky? Perhaps. Common sense in use? Yes. That article's credibility? You tell me. I am not trying to flame here but trying to be fair.

    1. Re:hmmm - weird weird by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The article has zero information about the computers involved. Were they older machines? Did they have uncommon hardware? Or impolite drivers?

      60% failure does seem unlikely to me. Microsoft presumably does at least some internal testing, and they're not going to release it if that many machines are going to be problematic (even a "release candidate").

      The wide array of hardware Windows accepts must be a huge nightmare for Microsoft. I begin to understand why Apple wants to be the only ones who make Macintosh-compatible computers.

  68. I have had a much better experience... by kirk444 · · Score: 1

    I've upgraded 3 machines so far. A 1 Ghz Dell Dimension 4100, a custom 1.6P4 and an IBM Thinkpad T21. All machines had started on Windows XP and been upgraded with SP1 already. They had been running for at least a month or two with SP1. The SP2 install worked flawlessly on all three with absolutely no adverse effects. I was impressed, as I had even allotted time for troubleshooting. Maybe MS *is* doing something right. Speaking of MS doing things right, when they pay me $3 for each share I own, that's called doing things right in my book.

    1. Re:I have had a much better experience... by Phragmen-Lindelof · · Score: 1

      "Maybe MS *is* doing something right."
      No, you are doing something wrong. :-) Your problems with SP2 will arise at some future time when you have not "allotted time for troubleshooting" and you cannot afford a blue screen.

    2. Re:I have had a much better experience... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Yep, you just have to deal with all the worms, viruses and exploits until they decide to get off their ass and give you that service pack for these errors that they were told of 3 years in advance. :)

      Ain't Microsoft great? They should change their motto to: 'What do you need us to patch today?'

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  69. M$ will make 3rd party security obsolete! by Klion · · Score: 1

    I got a kick out of the end of the article: "The functionality that SP2 brings to the table may make many third-party security utilities--such as popup blockers and software firewalls--obsolete." "may" indeed, lol. As in I "may" trip over a winning lottery ticket while sitting at my desk typing this :)

    1. Re:M$ will make 3rd party security obsolete! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Every time Microsoft has released a new version of their operating system -- going all the way back to DOS in the 80's -- they have included a lot of new features.

      And each time, all of the so called "experts" have predicted that third party developers would be driven out of business by these new features that are included in Windows at no extra charge. But that never happens. Because most of these new features suck and are inferior to third party products.

    2. Re:M$ will make 3rd party security obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young $person, you would do well to learn a little history.

      Remember Delrina? They sold a windows-based fax package in the late 80s and early 90s. Winfax Pro was one of the top-selling software applications at the time. MS rolled out WFWG with integrated fax capabilities, and Delrina was gone within 18 months.

      Also, remember Telix? Probably the best terminal program available in its time. MS rolled modem support into Windows, and within a year no one was using it.

      Then there's always the minor nuisance that IE caused Netscape to experience.

      It's not the quality that counts, where MS is concerned, it's the quantity.

    3. Re:M$ will make 3rd party security obsolete! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you're one of the 60% that get a foobared box, your 3rd party security WILL be obsolete!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  70. Windows XP SP2 Still Rough Around the Edges by nate+nice · · Score: 0, Troll

    Understatement of the year.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  71. security by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 0

    yeah... that's even better than removing the keyboad, mouse, monitor, network adapter, and hardisk... but that's my security so ©!!!

    --
    The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
  72. It's retribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Microsoft were an innocent player on a level playing field, you'd be right. Alas, that's not an appropriate picture in this case.

    What you're seeing is Microsoft being given a well-deserved kicking in retribution for its countless misdemeaners over a huge number of years. If the legal sanctions had actually worked out as intended then maybe there might be some reason to be sorry for the megacorp and invoke fairness, but it's no secret that the various "punishments" have been totally ineffective.

    Microsoft is now just a leech sucking the lifeblood of the world's PC users, determined not to let go and oblivious to anything except its own profits. Being hounded by Slashdotters is nothing compared to what they truly deserve.

  73. Re:Well, there are other ways of looking at this.. by Ieshan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but the Tech Support default response of "Power Cycle" isn't very interesting when the only possible machine state is "off".

  74. Full circle by Bronz · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Microsoft (and many other companies) need users to do a lot of beta testing for these types of upgrades. There's just too many unknowns out in the wild.

    Many people (companies) adopt a wait-and-see approach to big service packs and patches.

    The people most likely to try out the SPs are those who don't really care if Windows still boots after the procedure. That is to say, those who don't use Windows as their primary OS.

    So, in the end, it's the linux users who will beta test and get SP2 out the door.

    (p.s -- typing this drivel was vetter than working the last 5 minutes of a Friday).

    1. Re:Full circle by FullCircle · · Score: 1

      Nice title

      Watch that karma burn...

      --
      If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  75. Re:2000 XP by LordPhantom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not to be offensive, but I don't buy it. Simply because you cannot configure your machine properly when overclocked isn't a good reason to claim XP is unstable....

    Admittedly, it may imply that the Linux kernel handles exceptions, etc better than XP, but from what you're saying, I suspect the instablity is in your -system-.

  76. Re:2000 XP by atari2600 · · Score: 1

    if you can't run Windows XP in a stalble way and judge the product - i got two words for you : STFU n00b.

  77. I've installed it on 10 different systems... by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 1

    Under different hardware configs, with different software already there.

    No problems, not once.

    It's my daily use OS on my notebook and my 2nd machine at home. Games, music, other normal stuff is all working fine.

    But then again, I didn't have problems with the early releases.

    I've done fresh installs from their ISOs, and xpsp2 type installs into existing OS's.

    I wonder what people are doing, or what kind of gear they're trying to get it to run on.

    AMD, Intel, integrated video, ATI video, Nvidia, weird notebook drivers, all have been fine.

    Wireless networking, wired networking, browsing, downloading, everything has been smooth.

    Are they actively trying to make it fail? (i.e. it fails every time I turn it off by pulling power during the initial load.)

    What am I doing RIGHT?

    --
    My mom says I'm cool.
  78. Trojans/worms now know how to uninstall SP1 by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Very interesting how (relatively) easy it is to uninstall all service packs from Win XP:

    * Execute whatever DOS commands are in spuninst.txt
    * Set a registry key to "LocalSystem"
    * Execute spuninst\spuninst.exe
    * Reboot to restore (most) drivers

    Once this is done, the article says, all service packs are gone without a trace. This leaves the Win XP box in the state it would have been in on October 14, 2003, with all these vulnerabilities.

    So much for security patches!

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Trojans/worms now know how to uninstall SP1 by vhold · · Score: 2

      Ignoring the fact that if one worm has already gotten in, in order to be able to perform that, what difference does it make if more get in?

      Security patches are definitely worth it. What you said is kind of like saying, why even bother with an air bag if you still need to wear a seatbelt?

    2. Re:Trojans/worms now know how to uninstall SP1 by Hidyman · · Score: 1

      That's why you slipsteam the Service Packs and Hotfixes into your XP Install disc.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me ...
  79. SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by karmatic · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use bestcrypt (kind of like a crypto loopback device, only for windows), and SP2 hosed it. The device driver won't load, and I still can't access any of my encrypted data.

    I wonder what SP2 did that broke it?

    1. Re:SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what SP2 did that broke it?

      Is there a new Microsoft product (or new integral part of the OS) in that niche? If so, you're probably hosed.

    2. Re:SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by dtperik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But thankfully you backed that up somehow.... right?.... or .. maybe... not.

    3. Re:SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      No, SP2 did not break it. Some beta crap did. when SP2 comes out, and if it in fact breaks it, then there's reason to post. But thanks for playing.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    4. Re:SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by wobblie · · Score: 1

      There are many such thing s for linux, cryptfs comes to mind for one

    5. Re:SP2 Breaks BestCrypt by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I use bestcrypt (kind of like a crypto loopback device, only for windows), and SP2 hosed it. The device driver won't load, and I still can't access any of my encrypted data.

      As Windows doesn't offer loopback devices itself (encrypted volumes, disk images, etc.) perhaps BestCrypt is using undocumented API calls to make it work.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  80. Microsoft should do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Microsoft should just stop all activity on the products, scrap the Windows platform and start from scratch. Yeah it may hurt in the short run however it will benefit them in the long run (as well as open source). It will be less expensive for microsoft to do so, and they shouldnt give a damn about previous compatability, they should admit their faults start over and make an operating system right.

    Granted it will show how weak closed source development models are as compared to open source development models because for atleast the operating system the developers overall made the system right the first time.

    Score 0 because slashdot has anonymouscowardaphobia.

  81. Re:Well, there are other ways of looking at this.. by ikegami · · Score: 1

    : It keeps the writers of SP3 employed

    Well, 40% of them...

  82. master of the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be running some funky funky code on there.

    ...ya think? Perhaps something/anything sold by Microsoft?

  83. Perfect security! by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If you can't make it into Windows, then your chances of getting infected decrease substantially.

  84. Good news... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    "According to crn.com when they tried upgrading various computers to Windows XP SP2 RC2 3 out of 5 of the machines failed to come back up..."

    Well thank God functionality wasn't affected...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  85. Re:2000 XP by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that some people have such bad luck with Windows XP. I run Windows XP on several computers and I've never seen the thing crash.

    I don't think you should be terribly worried about XP on a new laptop. It will probably run just fine.

  86. Re:2000 XP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The only problem I have been having with XP is one you describe: explorer.exe blowing up. However, I had that problem when I ran win2k too, and win98 before that. I have concluded that explorer's ephemerality is merely a function of being windows. They ought to just call it a feature (to avoid potential memory leaks) and call it a day.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  87. winNT? by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    It took four years to get to that point where a winNT box was stable..

    I use to adminsiter winNT server boxes and should know..

    So are u willing to wiat another 3 years fro xp to finally get stable?

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:winNT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP is is solid as a rock for stability. Security holes don't make an OS unstable, they make it vulnerable.

    2. Re:winNT? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      You're a little less than coherent, but either way, you're a bit off track here.

      XP was fairly stable at release. You have to keep in mind that NT was totally new ground for Microsoft. By time XP rolled around, they had not only a year of experience from Win2K, but all the years of experience from NT. They've had almost 3 years since then to further improve the system. Assuming SP2 doesn't introduce any major new problems, stability isn't really a concern for XP as it's been stable for quite some time.

  88. No problems here. by access800 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recently did a format of my WinXP Partition, reinstalled, installed Service Pack 2, and haven't encountered any problems whatsoever to date.

    I don't wave the banner of Microsoft, by any means, but I'm gonna have to refuse jumping on the "lol winblows sux!!11" bandwagon this time. Quote, from the mouth of the bloated giant itself:

    WARNING!
    This technical preview is unsupported and is intended for testing purposes only. Do not use in production environments.


    Were you really expecting it to be perfect? The entire point of a beta test is to locate bugs and fix them.

    Some useful links:
    FAQ's, Deployment Guides, etc:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx
    SP2 Newsgroups:
    http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/defaul t.asp?icp=xpsp2&slcid=us
    (Not that the newsgroups contain much pertinent information; almost as much anti-MS sentiment there as /. ^_^)

  89. Troll alert by _damnit_ · · Score: 1

    I don't know why I even bother responding to college kids on too much redbull.

    It's a release candidate! It's out there to find bugs. That's what they found. If the idiot who put this on 5 computers cared about the data on the machines he should have backed them up. Wait until you're out of school and make stupid newbie mistakes like this guy a couple of times. Learn from them (hopefully) and get on with life.

    Kids! ;)

    --


    _damnit_

    It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
    1. Re:Troll alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugs - of course, but not critical.

      In other words,
      Microsoft Dictionary: "Release Candidate: after this we release Candidates for Marketroids".

  90. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFLMAO!

  91. Ok here is how SP2 was installed. by Utopia · · Score: 1

    Install SP2 RC2 on Computer 1
    "Oh! No. Blue Screen."

    "Lets try it on a second machine shall we?"
    "Oh! No. Blue Screen."

    "May be third time Lucky."

    The Rest is history...

  92. Was it something I said? by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    Hee, well, I'm glad to be of service, Bungi. If I can ever be of further assistance to you, please, do not hesitate to contact me.

  93. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For quite a while I had no problems at all with XP (Home). I'm reasonably security-conscious: Firewall, Spybot, no IE or Outlook, always install updates.

    One day Explorer crashed. The next day it did it again. It happened intermittently for a few days, then one time it crashed, restarted, and immediately crashed again. This repeated until I killed the power. Restarted, same problem. Restarted in Safe Mode, same problem. Restarted in Safe Mode again, this time chose to restore a previous Restoration Point. That fixed the problem, but I didn't trust it to fix it permanently, so I backed up what I needed and did a complete format & reinstall.

    Why did this happen? I'm not sure. In the few days before Explorer entered an infinite crashing loop I had installed a few Windows updates, the .Net framework, .Net Framework SDK, and DirectX 9 SDK. If one of these was to blame, I don't know. I installed them all again after my clean install and everything worked fine. ...Sort of. I did have some other instances of Explorer crashing, and eventually decided that it might have something to do with "Sysfader", which I guess is what makes the menus fade in, and animates windows when they are minimized and restored. I disabled this (I forget how -- maybe it was a service that I killed, maybe I just turned off those features) and I don't think Explorer has crashed since.

  94. Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloody hell, it's time to just get a Mac.

  95. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a tip: Buy hardware that is stable and runs in spec when running overclocked.

  96. Re:2000 XP by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    dude, I just overclocked it, set the bios to what some site on the internet said to(who really understands the BIOS anyways haha), and I've loaded every tweak tool there is, therefore XP is crap.

    I even have NEON, so how can it be my system?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  97. Best Free Advice by hcuar · · Score: 1

    XP is not typically flaky... You most likley have a hardware issue.

    Step 1: Check your memory... I'd recommend Memtest86. You can dl for free at: http://www.memtest86.com/

    Step 2: You're overclocked too much. Dial it back. Take small steps for overclocking. Also evaluate if you need to overclock. You'd be surprised at how little overclocking buys you (games rely heavily on the video card, not the processor).

    Step 3: Make sure you have all the latestest chipset drivers installed.

    Step 4: Make sure you haven't changed any settings in BIOS that may cause a problem. I set my AGP Apertature size to 512M one time... Totally made my system unstable.

    Step 5: Ok... Maybe it is spyware or a virus. I highly doubt it though.

    Step 6: You're screwed. Time to build a new system. Switch to Linux. Buy a Mac. I don't know, but you're system is possessed.

  98. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    So you're saying overclocking is OS-dependent? I'm rock solid in Win 2000. Not so and never have been in XP. This is with the same BIOS settings across the board.

  99. DOS filenames by RedBear · · Score: 0, Troll

    What I find most fascinating about this is that we're talking about the latest Windows operating system in the year 2004, and Micros~1 is still naming their files with the ancient DOS 8+3 format:

    Once in the folder, engineers had to rename "spuninst.txt" to "spuninst.bat" and execute the batch command "batch spuninst.bat."

    Mod this funny if you like but I don't find it particularly funny that the software that most of the world is being forced to use is still crippled and poorly designed to such an amazing extent. Unbelievable.

    And let's see, this is RELEASE CANDIDATE 2 (TWO) of their new ultra-wonderful service pack, and the following happens to your computer when you try to install it:

    After that process finished, some interesting events occurred. The rollback process uninstalled every device that existed in the PC. Network cards, video cards and all system resources were uninstalled. The PC was able to recover all of the uninstalled items, except one, upon a reboot. The graphics card, the Matrox Millennium P650, couldn't be recovered. Engineers tried to reinstall the drivers but, oddly enough, the Matrox folder was erased from the system and unable to be recovered. The only way to correct the problem was to go to Matrox's Web site and download the drivers from the support page.

    Again, unbelievable. Sixty billion dollars behind them and this is the best they can do. Why the world puts up with this, I'll never fathom.

    1. Re:DOS filenames by ceswiedler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me know when you write an operating system which runs on everything Windows does, and handles upgrades better. In fact, let me know when ANYONE writes an operating system that does a better job with crazier hardware. Microsoft has a lot of problems, but they hire good engineers. It's a complex problem.

      Have you ever developed software? Do you know anything about deploying software? Do you know how difficult it is to upgrade software on millions of machines that have had near-infinite permutations of software written by either malicious or ignorant third-party developers installed and uninstalled?

      There's a lot Microsoft could do better. But I really can't stand you implying that they're a bunch of idiots when it's painfully obvious it's the other way around.

    2. Re:DOS filenames by RedBear · · Score: 1

      As usual I didn't say they were idiots anywhere in my post. Which implies that you might be an idiot for thinking that I did. But it would be rude to make that implication, wouldn't it? You would know.

      Micros~1 may have great coders but they are faced with a huge problem due to the fact that their software hasn't been designed properly to be stable, modular, maintainable and upgradeable without breaking a lot of things in the process. They have been fully aware for the last 20 years or so how difficult it is to upgrade software on millions of computers. They nevertheless have failed to build in robustness and easy upgradeability. I don't need to be a developer to know that with the money and talent that they have at their disposal, they could have done a much better job in the first place and then they wouldn't be faced with this gargantuan task of making SP2 work on millions of computers flawlessly.

      You know, it could easily be argued that the fact that Microsoft supports all the "craziest hardware" has supported the development of crazy hardware, rather than functional hardware built to some sort of standards that would be usable everywhere, not just on Microserf operating systems. Kind of similar to the way that their support of easy infection has supported the development of viruses, trojans, spyware, malware, etc.

      I have nothing to apologize for by choosing to no longer tolerate crappy software design, thankyouverymuch.

    3. Re:DOS filenames by NineNine · · Score: 1

      You're making fun of what utility files are called? Are you on fucking crack? Every tried Linux? It's like fucking heiroglyphics compared to Windows. And, it's not like 8+3 is a requirement. 8+3 has been dead since Windows NT 3.5 came out in what? 1994? Talk about a straw man...

    4. Re:DOS filenames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need to be a developer to know that...

      Ok we get the point now. You are a stupid ass who doesn't know what you are talking about.

    5. Re:DOS filenames by proxima · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you write an operating system which runs on everything Windows does, and handles upgrades better.

      Debian Stable runs on Alpha, ARM, HP PA-RISC, Intel x86, Intel IA-64, Motorola 680x0, MIPS, MIPS (DEC), PowerPC, IBM S/390, and SPARC.

      Upgrading to a new version of stable when it comes out is as easy as apt-get install upgrade and hit "y" a few times. Those with dependency problems on Debian are typically trying to mix unstable/testing packages/sources along with it, which while doable sometimes require a little more futzing (I've had to do this on occasion).

      For an operating system that supports even more platforms, try NetBSD whose motto is, "Of course it runs NetBSD." I haven't used it personally so I can't speak for its ease of upgrades.

      Now for an inevitable rebuttal. No, Linux/BSD does not support each and every x86 winmodem/etc piece of hardware (though I'm told an increasing number of winmodems work). That said, not only does Linux/BSD run on many more platforms but Windows XP has been known to simply not support older drivers from companies who no longer wish to support them (scanner drivers come to mind).

      Finally, I fail to see how Installing SP2 should be considered an "upgrade". While there are new features in SP2, few people would justify spending $100 for mostly security fixes and improvements. Apple added a variety of new features in its latest 10.3, but few people seemed to feel like they needed to pay $100 just to have a safer computing experience. And yes, the problem of safely handling a real upgrade (one where there are dramatic changes on all levels) is difficult. To be truly safe, time permitting, it's often a good idea to do a fresh install of any OS to avoid strange problems. Sometimes upgrades work, sometimes they don't. I don't believe Microsoft is any better at this than the OSS alternatives, and I haven't tested enough Apple upgrades to give judgement.

      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    6. Re:DOS filenames by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      chicken...egg...
      microsoft has hardware support because microsoft is a monopoly not because microsoft is the one supporting the hardware
      the hardware companies write their own drivers....

    7. Re:DOS filenames by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Linux is hieroglypics? What? Are you on fucking crack?

      I'm a linux newbie, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Windows.

      For instance, a few days ago I needed to fix a firewall rule that was eating DNS requests.

      There's a directory called /etc. I know enough to know that configuration files go there.

      In that directory, there's /etc/shorewall. Sounds like a firewall to me, plus the Mandrake documentation said something about it. So, we go in there.

      In there there's a text file: "rules". Gee, maybe that has something to do with the firewall rules, so we edit it. Bingo! Lots of plain-vanilla-human-readable ASCII, with pages and pages of comments, that are clear enough that anyone who knows what a firewall rule is can figure out how to write one.

      In Windows you can't even *write* custom firewall rules as far as I know.

      Linux looks complicated because all the guts are laid out there for you to see... but, when you need to poke around in those guts, they're really not that bad. Stuff They're certainly a lot cleaner than poking about in regedit guessing at search strings to find what you want.

      Any config files with syntax arcane enough to not be apparent from comments usually have man pages.

      So, which do you want? Do you want to have to do a few minutes' reading of man pages and comments in order to change settings, and then have them behave like you want them to?

      Or, do you want to sit there clicking through "wizards" for a while, reboot your computer twice, and then have something break four days from now because the "Network Setup Wizard" changed your addressing information?

      Me, I'll stick with ifconfig, thanks.

  100. how is this insightful? by _damnit_ · · Score: 1
    Come on. The guy admits:
    The only machine I've seen it run smoothly on, and even then it still had problems, was a fancy-pants Dell at some office job.

    He's obviously never seen that many computers. There are millions of PCs running XP just fine. Even my mom's computer runs without problems now that I put XP on there and she has a 5 year old in the house who plays on it!! Walk through a datacenter with racks and racks of xp machines working just fine and then make that statement.
    Furthermore, this poster reveals something about himself:
    On my home computer, which is all overclocked and has neon and stuff

    Well, this is the kind of guy whose experience with operating systems I can trust. If my BMW ever breaks, I'll be sure to find one of those guys working on his car installing undercarriage lighting and a huge spoiler on his front wheel drive car. Yeah, that's it.
    Lastly, I'll get in a slight MS blast:
    I am sticking with 2000 until whatever's past XP comes out.

    Good luck waiting for that.

    If you don't agree, too bad. I have karma to burn. Thanks for the vine... I'm out.
    --


    _damnit_

    It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
    1. Re:how is this insightful? by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      What datacenter were you in that's full of boxes running a desktop OS? Better yet, what company was that? I want to make sure I don't accidentally get a tech support job with them.

      I was too hard on poor XP. I should have been more specific. The only new machine I've seen it run smoothly on is that Dell Dimension 8100. It works wonderfully well on older hardware. Like gramma's PII-350. In that case, it's a big step up from 98 or anything else for that matter. XP on old HW = good. XP on bleeding edge HW = lots of problems. My home system with the racing stripes and aftermarket video card cooler is an nForce2 platform, btw. And as I mentioned, 2000 is rock solid, XP just isn't.

      I hear you about the successor to the successor of 2000. Seeing as MS will be supporting 2000 until 2007, I *think* they might have something out before PSS won't take my calls.

    2. Re:how is this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just face it dude, if you can't run a solid XP and you're so inexperienced with it that you think that it's solely XP's fault, you probably shouldn't be on this site.

    3. Re:how is this insightful? by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      And yet, the exact same computer, with the exact same BIOS settings, is perfectly stable running Windows 2000.

      Yeah, it must be me. No, wait, I bet my racing stripes are not on the XP HAL.

    4. Re:how is this insightful? by _damnit_ · · Score: 1

      Lots of people run "desktop OSes" on x86 boxes in datacenters. Why pay more for the "server version" when you're not using the additional features? Same kernel, runs the same win32 binaries - why not? What features in W2k server do you need for apache load balanced boxes that isn't in XP?

      Bleeding edge hardware == problems

      You don't need to add an OS to make that statement true.

      --


      _damnit_

      It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
    5. Re:how is this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. It's Windows XP, OK? It's not tough, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about when you say that Windows XP, as a whole, is an absolute piece of shit. It's not.

      Maybe it's your hardware, maybe you don't know what you're doing, but at any rate, XP is not the garbage you claim it is if you actually set it up correctly. Blaming it on the OS shows your newbiness. That's the bottom line.

    6. Re:how is this insightful? by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Bleeding edge hardware == problems.

      But bleeding edge OS == smooth sailing?

      You're going to tell me that XP SP1 is *more* reliable than 2000 SP4?

  101. SP1? by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    I tossed SP2 RC2 over a non-SP1 XP install and it worked fine. I don't think you need SP1 installed, so what's all this re-installing SP1 stuff?

    Meanwhile, I love having a real bluetooth stack, and the latest nVidia drivers work with the concurrent sessions hack.

  102. It's not the OS that's good... by Ucklak · · Score: 0

    Need to disagree with you.

    Having come full circle and happily with Linux and Mac OSX now, Win2000 is _loads_ better than any of their other OSes but it's still crap, bloated, and buggy.

    It's the 3rd party software that make's it bearable.

    Windows doesn't have a calendar
    Windows has a crappy cli
    Windows takes forever to boot except for a newly installed XP (Some Linux distros take too long too)
    The interface is really tired. Linux you can customize it, Mac Aqua rules.
    Applications are poorly managed in Windows. How many exe's are hidden in system/32/windows that aren't in the menu?
    -You mean Windows 95/98 had an inter-office chat program?

    IMO, the Windows interface makes logical sense but Mac has workflow down.
    Linux just rules because it's all about what you want where ever you want it.

    (Not to mention that my iBook has a 6hr battery life.)

    --
    if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
  103. Re:2000 XP by Elminst · · Score: 1
    Explorer.exe simply crashes, repeatedly and often, for no good reason.
    So don't use explorer.
    Talisman Desktop is quite handy, and my current shell.
    LiteStep is another great alternative.
    Less resources, more stable (no crashes so far in 2+ months), and more configurable.

    --
    No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  104. 3/5 failed all had Spyware...coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article mentions that they blue-screened and said "winserv" couldn't be found (I see no one bothered to Google it). First of all, I call bullsh*t as bluescreens are for hardware failures. Secondly, winserv is SPYWARE AKA A VIRUS. Why would they expect anything to install properly on those machines?

    I've installed SP2 on about 40-50 machines with no probs. I say this article is anti-MS propaganda.

    1. Re:3/5 failed all had Spyware...coincidence? by tereshchenko · · Score: 1

      This "article" is yet another example of pointless anti-Microsoft bashing. I'm becoming more and more dissappointed with Slashdot. Not to mention that somehow I manage to read most of the news days before they appear on /.

      --
      Slashdot - free anti-Microsoft propaganda 24/7
    2. Re:3/5 failed all had Spyware...coincidence? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      Well, you're pretty much correct: Spyware is not a virus. A virus may contain spyware, but that's different than saying spyware and viruses are the same thing. I run a help desk that cleans this stuff off users' computers all day long - different traits. Don't go mixing the two up.

      Secondly, why are you installing RC2 of the service pack on 40-50 machines? Is that really wise to do when you aren't dealing with the final release? I can understand testing on a few boxes, but 40-50?

  105. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    agreed!!!!!!!1

  106. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    You've never seen Explorer.exe crash on XP?

    Or maybe the users just haven't ever mentioned it to you. Check those hundreds of event logs and get back to me. I am pretty sure it's there.

    Within this thread, somebody has had the same experience as me.

    I shouldn't have to "look for the cause." It should just work. When explorer.exe starts flaking out on a re-imaged Dell, a work machine that doesn't have anything "funny" on it, that's not my doing.

  107. I find this hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've installed WinXP SP2 RC1 and RC2 onto 4 PC's including my work notebook and never had a single issue other than being unimpressed with the time it takes to install. I sometimes wonder how these IT media people manage to hold down a day job, God knows they know nothing about installing software.

  108. Redirect to /dev/null by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent article is just plain ridiculous. I'm the I.T. Director for a large organization, and practically the entire I.T. department is running SP2 RC2, busily finding out what it breaks (not as much as you'd think, actually). The idea that 3 out of 5 machines "didn't come back up" is either due to (a) really funky, odd hardware or (b) a really screwy WinXP core install. We've had a 100% upgrade success rate and no reason to complain thus far, and we've got way more than 5 systems done.

    But it wouldn't matter if we had 100 systems that worked right because it's a statistically insignificant sample of the overall whole. Hey, I had a Linux box not come back up once because I updated the kernel 2.4 kernel package with a 2.5 development release package! I guess the 2.6 kernel needed to go back to testing big time, eh? Do you see the idiocy of the parent article's claim and further assumption?

    But then again this is Slashdot, where no good bashing of Microsoft goes unheralded.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by emazing · · Score: 0

      I agree. I've installed SP2 RC2 on 2 other PCs without any problems. All drivers, games, and other apps run perfect. RC2 has been out for a while now. Why would it take so long for an article to be released about it's supposed problems with installation? If there was such a significant problem, it would've been known earlier and Microsoft would address it. I don't see a clear reason why Microsoft bashing would be necessary, at least in this case.

    2. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You installed a Release Canidate on production IT machines? You're either very brave, or very very dumb..

    3. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by standsolid · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as you're using that analogy...at least with the 2.6/2.5 kernel upgrade you are able to know EXACLTY what files you are changing and could figure out a decent way to go back, using a command-line. Not only that, but if you configured your bootloader well (did I say well? I meant correctly), you could have both kernels booting just fine. If your 2.5 linux kernel install completely hosed your machine, it was due to your own incompetence, or inability to read one of the many guides that were available at the time (most have been updated to reference 2.6/2.4 dual-kernel systems). Whereas with Microsoft and XP... you can install the SP2 release candidate -- and follow /perfect/ instuctions -- and still need to come back with the "hacks" mentioned in the article.

      Granted, neither of the updates or fixes are perfect -- but I'd take the situation with the hosed jernel over a hose XP box any day. But, oh, right, this is Salshdot...and standing up for Microsoft providing troll-ish examples of how linux fails in comparison is rated Informative.

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    4. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I've been installing SP2 since the first public beta with virtually no problems. I must say, I'm really impressed with their feedback on the problems I've reported as well. The bugs I reported in RC1 where all fixed, and I've not found any in RC2 or the newest beta (2162) either.

      Microsoft are taking a step in the right direction with SP2 and I hope they do the same with 2000 SP5.

    5. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "But then again this is Slashdot, where no good bashing of Microsoft goes unheralded."

      Kettle meet pot. Before you go bashing Slashdot for an article it didn't write you might want to consider that its actually possible that what they said did indeed happen.

      If your really the "I.T. Director for a large organization" then you'd know that CRN is a completely middle of the road channel rag that's more prone to publishing the MS line and reporting on their products then bashing them. What can I say? The machines they tested SP2 on didn't like it. Shit happens. They way your reacted is as if this piece came from www.anythingbutM$.com. Also going back to the whole your an IT director thing, if that was the case then you'd also realise that MS Service Packs can and do break standard configs for companies all of the world with every release. Many a company has been bit by the MS upgrade bug where the machine just never came up after an MS software patch was supplied. This is exactly what happened to them. Why the shock and outrage?

      My guess is eventually they will find out what the problem was and then 5 out of 5 installs will go fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't report on what they find.

      "IT guy" Top 3 VAR

    6. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by _marshall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that I disagree completely with your statement about slashdot being biased against microsoft, and I definately agree with your assesment of the article, but....

      It seems that in the past year or two I've heard people whining about all the anti-MS FUD that happens on slashdot. Whenever someone (like yourself) has a good rebuttal to the parent story, it gets modded up for everyone to see, and everyone sees their complaint.

      Now, I _might_ be wrong on this, but the fact that posts like yours -- that are exposing the truth behind articles like these -- are being seen more and more lately in the higher thresholds, is evidence to me that the community is willing to hear your "pro-MS" rebuttal, and therefore is not quite as closed minded as the generalization makes it out to be.

      [Insert obligatory.. "This is Pro-MS, therefore no one will like me and i'll be modded as flamebait" comment here =P]

    7. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Production IT Machines" are probably the desktops the sysadmins check their email on. Common place to test because you can just reload an image without any political fallout.

    8. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Terramotus · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I have SP2 RC2 on my home machines and I work at a computer tech support shop and have installed it on dozens of machines. Not once have I had a failure of a machine to boot up. This is on machines that run the gamut from new custom built PCs, to all sorts of different models of retail PCs. From units that have just been restored to ones that still have all sorts of junk on them.

      It's easier to just install the one service pack than the tons of updates, and heck, any problems that it's generated are small in comparison to the machine being completely unpatched, which most are.

      They're doing something wrong or have something screwy going on. Microsoft certainly has tons of problems, but this isn't one of them in my experience.

    9. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by m00nun1t · · Score: 1

      Yes, it probably did happen. But the /. bashing is still justified. I've read lots of articles praising SP2 (and submitted one), but /. choose to post the first article I've seen that reports major problems with it. I think that's worth /. bashing - they didn't write, they were just highly selective about what they chose to post.

    10. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: 1

      Not really. It only takes 5 people to rate him +5. Of of the tens of thousands of readers here, that hardly proves the the group here open minded.

      Yes, I realize that more than 5 people rated, but the number was not more than 10 I bet.

    11. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      We're neither brave nor dumb. We tried the RC1 on a very limited test batch and found it to be exceptionally stable and functional. After the RC2 came out, we upgraded that same small batch and found it to be still just as stable but with a few of the missing functionality in place. Based on that, most of the I.T. department installed it on their personal workstations so we can begin testing how it interacts with our programs and methodologies. I've found the best way to see how these things work is to actually use them, not confine them to a lab. Prudence is necessary, of course, but in this case Microsoft's released a Release Candidate that, in my opinion, would've *been* an actual release in the past. It just seems Redmond is playing this one extremely safe, which I am happy to see.

      As for problems with our setup, if we have issues with RC2, it's better it happens to us, the I.T. department, than anyone else. We have more fall-back resources than any other department, we're able to recover from issues faster due to our expertise, and if all else fails, we can re-image the machine without even leaving the department. It's the logical choice once something's deemed fit to leave the test lab.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    12. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Why must any post criticizing the anti-MS bias on Slashdot be immediately pigeonholed as a pro-MS post? There is a middle ground here called "objectivity," where one can safely be a Linux fan but dislike the way some zealots require Microsoft to be painted as the devil incarnate in order to get their point across. FUD from Linux fans is worse than FUD from Microsoft because Linux fans are supposed to abhor that kind of thing, whereas Microsoft has (in the past) used it with abandon. How are we going to beat Microsoft if we become them? If we adopt the same slimy attitude towards facts and truth, we're no better than Bill Gates and his marketing minions. If that's the case, we don't deserve to win this fight.

      I'm a user of both Windows and Linux systems. I happen to like both, but each for different reasons. I will not be pigeonholed as either a Microsoft apologist or a Linux fanboy just because the vast Slashdot majority is incapable of conceiving of a middle ground. It's demeaning from a crowd that claims to be the more intelligent, open-minded computing bunch.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    13. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      If your 2.5 linux kernel install completely hosed your machine, it was due to your own incompetence, or inability to read one of the many guides that were available at the time

      So let me get this straight: if I take a working Linux system, upgrade it with beta/unstable packages or kernels, and it refuses to boot, it's now all my fault. But if I do the same thing with Windows, it's Microsoft's fault? That sounds like something I've heard of before...oh, yes, here it is:

      double standard
      Main Entry: double standard
      Function: noun
      1 : BIMETALLISM
      2 : a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

      Oh, and let's not forget that you can always uninstall SP2 RC2 (backing up all modified files prior to upgrade is mandatory during the install of RC2 -- you can't tell it not to back up). If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2. The only situation that would leave you totally lost is if you destroyed the disk partition, something I have yet to hear anyone complain about with SP2 RC2.

      Yep, it's definitely all Microsoft's fault, isn't it?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    14. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by standsolid · · Score: 1
      OK, moron, I'll bite...
      context
      Main Entry: context
      Function: noun
      1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
      2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs
      so if you step out of fantasy land for a second and consider what I was intending in my message, as I said...
      [speaking about linux being hosed] standsolid: ...could figure out a decent way to go back, using a command-line.
      My intentions were obviously to point out that if Windows doesn't boot -- you've got to re-install. Linux has the advantage of the multitude of LiveCDs you can use to rescue your screw-up.
      prisoner-of-enigma: If you render your system non-bootable you can almost always get in via safe mode or administrative recovery mode and then uninstall RC2
      Yeah, because there's never been a common problem with Windows that doesn't even let it boot into safe mode...and good luck with "uninstalling" SP2 RC2 in a recovery console or administrative recovery mode . If you manage, please contact me. (Now, I've never seen an RC2 install fsck up a Windows box with this or any other error, but this is just an example)

      So, yes, if Microsoft's automated SP2 RC2 installer (that is so controlling, it doesn't even give you the option to back-up) manages to mangle your system -- this is Microsoft's fault. On the other hand, if you hand-compile your linux 2.5 kernel, modify your bootloader, etc to ultimately fsck your system -- it is YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

      This is the picture I Was trying to draw. I apologize if it was too hard a reading for you to follow.
      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    15. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      OK, moron, I'll bite...

      Tsk tsk...namecalling is the last refuge of the incompetent. You sank so low so fast I'm shocked you didn't rupture something.

      My intentions were obviously to point out that if Windows doesn't boot -- you've got to re-install. Linux has the advantage of the multitude of LiveCDs you can use to rescue your screw-up.

      And my intention was to point out there are numerous ways for Windows users to recover from the exact same scenario. You can boot off the installation CD and do a recovery. You can make a custom boot disk to do manual recover (Bart's PE disk is wonderful for this). Of course, you'd know this if you knew the first damned thing about Windows, but who am I kidding? The only qualifications for being a Microsoft basher on Slashdot are...well, no qualifications at all, it seems. Go read up a bit before you spout off next time and you won't look like such a fool.

      Yeah, because there's never been a common problem with Windows that doesn't even let it boot into safe mode

      More instant-Google idiocy from you. Did you even bother to read the KB article you linked to? You couldn't have, because if you had, you'd have seen the "Cause" heading which clearly shows you're referencing a hardware issue. Hey, I can put a dodgy IDE cable on a hard drive and get Linux to kernel panic all day long. I guess that makes Windows and Linux equally unstable and unfit for real work, right? Boy, I'm glad we got that cleared up!

      and good luck with "uninstalling" SP2 RC2 in a recovery console or administrative recovery mode . If you manage, please contact me. (Now, I've never seen an RC2 install fsck up a Windows box with this or any other error, but this is just an example)

      I've already uninstalled SP2 RC2 once from a machine that was in the middle of having a hard drive controller failure. I removed it because I wanted to make sure RC2 wasn't causing the problem (it wasn't). The uninstaller worked flawlessly. If that had failed, I could've used the System Restore feature to return the system to a previous snapshot, and it just so happens SP2 RC2 forces a snapshot prior to installation. So, to sum it up, I'd have to completely and totally fsck up the box in order to render myself unable to uninstall SP2 RC2 -- and if I managed to do that, it wouldn't matter if RC2 were on it or not. Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, this conversation might actually be worthwhile. But you'd rather demagogue and be a hypocrite. So typical, yet I had hoped you'd be more entertaining than this.

      So, yes, if Microsoft's automated SP2 RC2 installer (that is so controlling, it doesn't even give you the option to back-up)

      Ummm...BULLSHIT...the fucking installer FORCES a backup! It won't install without it you damned fool! Could you possibly be more stupid? Have you choked on your knee yet, or is your foot just too tasty to swallow?

      This is the picture I Was trying to draw. I apologize if it was too hard a reading for you to follow.

      No apology necessary, since your arguments were neither logical, factual, or even mildly entertaining. You wished to engage in a big fit of FUD slinging, and you've succeeded admirably! It might've worked against someone with no knowledge of Windows or SP2, but you do not have that advantage here. I fear all of this will fall on deaf ears, however, since you're obviously more interested in crafting fallacies than finding facts, so I will bid you adieu. Please try again later when you've grown up and understand that it's not nice to lie about something to someone who knows more about it than you. They just might catch you and make you look foolish...

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    16. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      severe standards of sexual behavior

      Seems clear enough to me.

      People "screw around" with Linux and are "getting screwed by" Microsoft, so meeting the criterion needed to qualify for the double standard.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    17. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn, you destroyed him. the 3 linux users in the world are now crying.

    18. Re:Redirect to /dev/null by jifl · · Score: 1

      While you have a general point, your specific analogy isn't right:

      "I updated the kernel 2.4 kernel package with a 2.5 development release package! I guess the 2.6 kernel needed to go back to testing big time, eh?"

      Development release != release candidate.

      It wouldn't even be fair to compare against something like Fedora Core 2 beta as SP2 is already meant to be past the beta stage.

  109. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a tip: By definition, if it's overclocked, it's not running in spec.

  110. OMFG, ROFLMAO! Mod parent up, please! by WarMonkey · · Score: 1

    OMFG, ROFLMAO! Mod parent up, please!

    --
    -- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
  111. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    LOL Joe, you sound just like me at work. Ad-Aware is tech support's new "killer app."

  112. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "solved with copying and pasting Linux code"

    Funniest thing I've read today.

  113. Re:Look at the cute kitten! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear sir,
    We need more trolls like you.
    Thank you.

  114. HEHEHE by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1, Funny

    HAHAHAhaha hahaha haha hahahaha hohohoh hehehehe lolol hehehe ahahahahaha.

    I love my Mac.

    Hehehehaha hahahehe lolol... hahaha tehe.

  115. My own experiences by The+Gline · · Score: 1

    I've upgraded five machines as well of widely varying hardware configurations. None of them were borked after the patch.

    Ever get the feeling they were looking for ways to screw things up? Just wondering...

    --
    Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
  116. Sigh by rd_syringe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what? The only people I ever see complaining about Clippy are Slashdotters who think it's still 1998, and that BSODs and Clippy are regular parts of the Windows experience.

    I haven't seen Clippy in a default Office install in five years. Whenever he did appear, I--gasp--right-clicked on him and clicked "Hide," thereby causing him to never return.

    Why do people still use criticisms from the past decade to criticize Microsoft now? I mean, really, what does Clippy have to do with SP2 RC2 causing some problems on some computers? For the record, I run SP2 RC2 on both my home machine and my laptop with no problems at all. In fact, bootup is shorter and performance overall is snappier, presumably because of all the recompiled system libraries (using the VS2005 compiler...SP1 was compiled with VS6).

    1. Re:Sigh by SoSueMe · · Score: 0

      You know what? I can invoke a BSOD on my fully patched Win 2000 machine at work almost at will.
      I can't tweak it as it is set to corp standards.
      As for our friend "Clippy" the first thing I did was turn that intellect insulting POS off.

      Why do people keep focusing on these monstrosities of idiocy? Because they are freaking fed up with the stupidity of the marketing geniuses.

      People are so sensitized to the lack of performance, the vulnerabilities and the restrictions that every time another one arises, they instantly recall all the bad experiences they have had previously.

      Yes, I'm bitter and Yes I am drinking again.

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ((((Why do people still use criticisms from the past decade to criticize Microsoft now?))))

      Because it's an easy way to symbolize "putting too much crap into the operating system without thinking about the consequences". Which they still do today, and Longhorn does x1000.

    3. Re:Sigh by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Because half the world still uses those crappy programs from ten years ago. Did you see the stuff in the Enron auction? Do you think those Pentiums (what were they, 1's) run Windows XP?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What about that damn dog? The dog that shows up to 'help' me find files in XP.

      I hate that dog. Why the hell should that dog know where my files are if I don't? Hell, he isn't even a bloodhound for Christ's sake. What is MS trying to say? Are they trying to say I am stupider than a cartoon dog?

    5. Re:Sigh by Gilesx · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sorry dude, but on the rare occasions I still have to boot into my Win partition, I get regular blue screens on Windows XP caused by running certain APPLICATIONS.

      App crashes --> System grinds to a halt --> bluescreen

      Point 1 - Bluescreens are NOT a thing of the past

      Bonus point - What kind of shoddy operating system makes it possible for a badly behaved app to bring *everything* crashing down?

      --
      Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
    6. Re:Sigh by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clippy might not be a common part of the Windows experience, but blue-screens are. OK, so they're not the same TYPE of blue screen (well, different layout anyway) but that white-on-blue text is still a part of Windows life.

      I've had all sorts of blue screen problems on my laptop (Compaq (I know, I know), bought from a big retail outlet, haven't put anything remotely dodgy on it... I still get all sorts of incarnations of that dreaded white-on-blue, only now it switches itself off straight after. Microsoft claiming Windows XP doesn't blue-screen is a cop-out; Turning itself off instead is not a more viable alternative, and if I see that 'Windows has recovered from a serious error' dialog one more time I will scream. but then I won't see it again, as after a month of battling numerous other problems with the infernal machine I formatted and put Linux on it.

      I'm no Linux fanboy, if XP worked as well as it CAN work all the time, I'd much prefer it to Linux, but I know the problems I had with it on my machine were it's fault because everything's working fine now.

      Just saying that problems with crashing are far from a rare experience, even with XP.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    7. Re:Sigh by Jungle+guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No, Clippy still exists and he haunts me.

      Let me explain. I work in a big corporation, with thousans of computers, and on every single one Windows and MS office are installed. If, for some reason, I go to a different computer, log on with my username and password, and launch MS Office, the "hide assistant" setting is not there, and Clippy shows in all his glory. It has happened twice this week, for example.

      So please stop astroturfing Microsoft. They deserve every complain about Clippy.

    8. Re:Sigh by wwahammy · · Score: 1

      You must have the crappiest applications in the history of man. I don't know anybody who has regular blue screens. I only get them on RARE occasions from a bad device driver.

    9. Re:Sigh by quixotic411 · · Score: 1

      In a lot of school CPU labs for windows lusers, the systems are set up so that they cannot be "damaged" by the user. Deletions, changes to data, and installations are wiped out every so often. Apparently, one thing that cannot ever be changed are any settings attached to MS-WORD or Clippy. So, he reappears all the time. At my school (Anonymous U.) I tried to "lose" his data files to fix it. They would just hit the reset button.

    10. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have hardware problems, dolt.

    11. Re:Sigh by mabinogi · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have never had an application crash Windows 2000 or XP.
      I've had freezes in 2000, related to crappy creative SBLive drivers - which I no longer get with XP (and updated drivers), and I've had 2 bluescreens in XP related to crappy ATI drivers, but that's it.

      I do Java and C development, and work with Oracle and multiple J2EE containers and Web servers. I also play games, and do home recording with Cakewalk Sonar, using many tracks, soft synths and effects.
      So I stress my machines fairly hard, but I still don't see crashes in XP.

      I did however, do some serious research before putting together my DAW machine and made sure I found the most stable motherboard with the most stable chipset of the time.

      Chances are, if you're getting regular bluescreens you've either got crap hardware, crap drivers, or you're overclocking.
      Windows, for it its flaws, is very stable since W2k.

      On the other hand, I have had lockups and kernel panics when using Linux, but also never from an application, always from bad hardware, or bad drivers.

      If you're always seeing the same bluescreen from the same application, then maybe that application is actually triggering a bug in a driver by using functionality that other applications rarely use.

      I remember that Enlightenment used to come with a warning that because it did things that other X applications did not, that it was likely to trigger bugs in X that could cause it to crash, or lock up, or even cause a kernel panic and crash the whole machine - so that's also not a Windows specific thing.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    12. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. BSODs might have been part of the Win98 experience (and to a lesser extent the NT experience) but since Win2k I think Windows has been fairly stable. I rarely see BSODs on Win2k or XP and when I do it's usually because of crappy device drivers. Then again this is /. so if it's Windows-related then it must be crappy, buggy and evil.

    13. Re:Sigh by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      You have hardware problems.

      Yes I'm sure Linux on the same machine works fine, but with Windows you have hardware problems. I have a machine like that too.

      If all your hardware is supported by Windows and the drivers are okay you'll likely never see a BSOD.

      So for most people with ordinary computers, yes, it is a thing of the past.

      What kind of shoddy operating system makes it possible for a badly behaved app to bring *everything* crashing down?

      I can do this with linux in various ways, and again they mostly relate to hardware stuffing up when something runs. Nothing's perfect.

    14. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Whenever he did appear, I--gasp--right-clicked on him and clicked "Hide," thereby causing him to never return.

      And yet I note the plural (whenever) before the 'to never return'. Which is it? And therein lies my biggest complient with the pile-of-poo offerings. Yes it's been seven years since I've lived with the pain-in-the-ass, but every time I try for the 'never return' setting, it comes right back.

    15. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, sure. BLAME your CERTIFIED Windows drivers.

    16. Re:Sigh by Gleng · · Score: 1
      What is MS trying to say? Are they trying to say I am stupider than a cartoon dog?

      Yes. Yes, they are.

      This is the main problem I have with Clippy/Dog/Whatever, they're a shining beacon of everything I hate about the Windows "experience".

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    17. Re:Sigh by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately this is not true. Just because the BSODs are less frequent in XP does not mean they're not still caused by stupid things.
      On a related note, just today I had an application repeatedly commit suicide, when it had never done so before. Somehow I don't think this is to do with hardware.

      XP is certainly better than before, but it is NOT perfect.
      Also, because Windows costs a lot to upgrade, people still run the old stuff. So even if they were a thing of the past in XP, BSODs still wouldn't be.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    18. Re:Sigh by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Precisely. For "ease of use" read "patronizing turd-pile lacking functionality."
      I'm sorry, but when I'm trying to work, I really don't want a persistent "clink clink clink" by Clippy or "woof" or whatever, reminding me that I need to save to avoid losing work to crashes (and whose fault is that) or that Clippy's replaced `teh' with `the'.
      The Office Assistant in OOo is along the right lines. An innocuous, static, silent image pops up. If you want to, you can get the info, but you soon learn what it's probably saying and so can ignore it. Or turn it off.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    19. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, hey, you can also turn off Clippy. Your point was?

    20. Re:Sigh by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I've got an SQL script that can BSOD XP 100% reliably... it unfortunately takes about 6 hours to do that so it's not quite so dramatic as running round the office causing BSODs to every machine while laughing manically.

      It's really not that hard to BSOD XP if you know what you're doing. It's hard to do accidentally, though (for example, the security APIs aren't error checked at all so you can run an app that corrupts the internal memory of the LSA.. the machine gets slowly more deranged until the LSA falls over and you get the 'I'm about to crash in 30 seconds' error).

    21. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true Bluescreens are not a thing of the past, but to say Windows sucks because a program brings the system to a halt is not fair unless you say Linux sucks for that same reason. I've had Linux segfault on me causing me to reboot the same if not more than my Windows Bluescreens on me.

      Just so you know, I've had Windows bluescreen on me 1 time in the last year. Just like Linux, if you run a crappy program, it's going to crash.

    22. Re:Sigh by Galley_SimRacer · · Score: 1

      BSOD? I don't believe that BSODs exist in WinXP as I have never seen one on the three different systems I have owned.

      --
      "I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet". Galley
    23. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can actually tell XP to not shut down or reboot after errors.

      Then you will get either the blue screen and have to shut down manually, or the system will just become unstable but still giving you a bit of a chance to save and close out what you are working on.

    24. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1 All my XP machines do actually run fairly stable, with almost never blue screens. BUT I did notice when I had it dual booting on my laptop with Fedora it tended to get alot of blue screens, and sometimes it would just cease to boot. It seems XP isn't always good about dual booting with other OS.

      #2 I work in a repair shop and this artical is kind of scary. I have been loading XP SP2 RC2 on alot of PCs because of the IE patches that block activex and popups, and the improved firewall. I have yet to have any problems but I've only loaded it on ~25 PCs and now I'm feeling kinda gun shy after this article.

    25. Re:Sigh by FireBook · · Score: 1

      1. I have 3 machines running XP, and have seen ONE bluescreen in 2 years.
      2.assuming the problems with the machine were ' fault' just because you had no such issues in Linux is oversimplifying hugely. I'd say it was more likely a serious driver issue somewhere, or a series of them, or a hardware issue or issues that do(es) not manifest in Linux (similar to certain old VIA chipsetted motherboards and windows 2000/XP causing massive data corruption and loss that were not an issue in windows 9x or Linux) and mmost likely Compaq's problem not MS's (for the record I am certainly no microsoft fanboy)

      --
      My other OS is also FreeBSD
    26. Re:Sigh by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      It's actually got worse since then: Clippy has migrated from Office to the OS itself, in WinXP's "Find" feature. Instead of Win95-style box with relatively useful options, we get an animated puppy. Yes, the options are still available, but they're buried beneath multiple menus.

      Even many people within MS hate the "assistants". For a decade, Microsoft Research has been testing Bayesian filters that make Clippy less annoying. The researchers are quite open about criticizing MS for not including their algorithms in the actual product.

    27. Re:Sigh by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      OK, I guess I did oversimplify the issue, but the outcome is still the same - reguardless of if the problems were Windows's fault, a driver fault, or Compaq's hardware's fault, getting rid of XP fixed the problems for me. It's a laptop, I can't easily replace the hardware, so if it's an OS-specific driver problem (I was using the latest drivers, I tried all that) then replacing the OS is the only way to go.

      It doesn't really matter to me who's fault it was, but this is a popular model of laptop, so there must be a lot of people out there experiencing the same errors as me - even from a fresh 'Compaq Restore' it would still misbehave. So maybe everyone with this model of laptop experiences XP bluescreens - maybe everyone with any Compaq laptop, or maybe just me - I just find it hard to believe I'm the only one in the world who had these problems, especially since they were present from a fresh install on a store-bought system.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    28. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your machine is crap. Windows XP is pretty stable; most of the issues I've seen come from shoddy hardware or buggy drivers. Plenty of "dodgy" software is typically installed on Compaq computers on the way out of the factory. If you install XP from a clean CD without adding all of the OEM crap, you might have a better experience with it.

    29. Re:Sigh by dolphinling · · Score: 1

      Thing that bugs me most about them is they take a full few seconds to show up on the screen, during which time you can't use the computer. You have to just sit there and wait.

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
    30. Re:Sigh by groot · · Score: 1

      I always thought those 'stupid Windows has recovered, blah..blah...blah.." were might fault for constantly tweaking and adding stuff to my XP machine, until I got new laptop to run Linux on it. I gave the old machine to my wife after restoring it back to factory default and adding all the updates that Bill said were necessary.
      Now her usage pattern is the exact opposite of me, she uses only the same small set of apps, never varying, yet those annoying "windows has recovered from" crap have returned. Now she is asking for relief.

      She wants to know if things would be better on Linux. I tell here probably but the learning curve is frustrating and may not be worth the switch given the limited set of activities she uses it for. She gives me looks like I am talking Icelanding.

      Maybe I will get a MAC for christmas :) Luckily reading slashdot is not one of here limited activities...at least that I know about.

      --laz

      --
      "Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
    31. Re:Sigh by groot · · Score: 1
      Maybe I will get a MAC for christmas :) Luckily reading slashdot is not one of here limited activities...at least that I know about.
      ...for her that is ;)
      --
      "Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
    32. Re:Sigh by ez_TAB · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like a hardware problem with the Compaq machine. Of course you sort of allude to that. But then you go on to blame XP anyway?

      --
      Quote from ???: "There are lies; there are damn lies; and there are benchmarks."
    33. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever.

      I'm sick and tired of Clippy, and the rest of the CPU/memory sucking heathens. I don't know about Office XP (I don't see any reason for our organization to shell out the $$ to upgrade above Office 2000) but it is installed by default in Office 2000. Obviously you can't count your years right.

    34. Re:Sigh by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      All I recall seeing in an Enron auction were the then new 60" plasma screens and a bunch of Sun Ultra 5 and E450 systems. FWIW, I don't think they would run WinXP either.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    35. Re:Sigh by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

      It looks like that dog is giving a bj during a particular part in the animation.

    36. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      ... just today I had an application repeatedly commit suicide, when it had never done so before. Somehow I don't think this is to do with hardware.

      If probably is hardware, especially if it never failed before. Hardware goes bad, and can do so slowly over time. Something changed, and presumably you didn't go dicking with your app, so I'd go looking in the world of the physical before the binary.

    37. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, windows still crashes and does it easily.

      I was developing a rather cool CGI like layer added to an application to allow the application to connect to the programs on a box with stdin and stdout.

      I did the UNIX side of it and the programming went easy. I made a bunch of mistakes, but was easily able to debug them and get it fixed in a couple of days.

      When I went to do the windows side I found out that a mistake with closing something that was already closed, or exiting when something has been left open would totally lock up the windows box.

      These were mistakes that I was able to make with no repercussions from the OS on the UNIX side, but with Windows 2000 it hosed the entire box up. It was so bad that I had to power cycle the box.

      I was not using any drivers. I was not accessing any hardware device. All I was doing was running another process with my main process attached to that processes standard in and out. The other process was something simple too, like a cmd shell.

      I finally got the windows portion debugged and working and it is now rock solid, but it took twice as long to program as the unix side, because of the lockups.

      The bigger issue is this. Do you want to run an OS that you have to trust the application to not do something bad in order to prevent the OS from crashing?

      If I was malicious I could leave something in the code to do randomly lock up a machine on occassion just to be annoying. I am not malicious, but other people are.

      I would rather not have to trust either closed source or to a rather fragile OS.

      Give me rock solid Linux with open source software everytime!

    38. Re:Sigh by I_Want_This_ID · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this response at the end of my work day on my work computer.

      A 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 and 1 GB of RAM, running....NT4.0 with Office 97 (with clippy turned on and no way to hid him)

      bite me

    39. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since you bought a crapy compaq notebook you deserve a system crash.

      I have never seen windows crash, then again I don't buy into hardware thats cheap and crappy.

      With a compaq, you would get crashes on any OS, not just windows.

    40. Re:Sigh by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      "Why do people still use criticisms from the past decade to criticize Microsoft now?"

      Denial. They are desperately trying to deny that Linux lost it's window of opportunity. MS saw what was happening, improved the system and slammed that window shut.

      While the zealots continue to give each other handjobs over BSOD jokes MS put out XP and 2003 Server which is rock solid.

      They will always be confused about why they aren't relevant.

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    41. Re:Sigh by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      > The bigger issue is this. Do you want to run an OS that you have to trust the application to not do something bad in order to prevent the OS from crashing?

      Obviously not, but Windows NT based operating systems are not such an OS, at least not _by design_ like Windows 9x were.
      Any time you see it happen, it's a fixable bug, that very like will be corrected in a future release, unlike Win9x where there was often pretty much nothing that could be done with it.

      Linux is not inherently any better than 2000/XP when it comes to this issue. I've had applications lock up or even kill X before, sometimes in a repeatable manner. Again that's due to bugs not by design, but it does still happen.
      And whilst linux itself might have still been running, that's pretty much an irrelevant point when all your work was either in an X based application, or in a console app runing via an X based terminal emulator.
      The only benefit you have over Windows in that instance is the fact that you don't have to wait for a full reboot to get back in to it.

      There are lots of reasons to use Linux over Windows, but stability isn't one of them these days.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    42. Re:Sigh by arminw · · Score: 1

      XP is more fickle when it comes to hardware it seems. After about 6 months the system that I bought new with XP pro installed crashed with a BSOD and would never boot again, no matter what I tried. I figured at first that the hardware had gone sour, but it was not so. I reformatted the HD using a DOS boot floppy specially made for such service and then installed Win2K with SP4. The machine has been running fine for almost a year, although it does lock up now and then, but I have never had a BSOD with it. Win2K appears to be a pretty good system for my business apps.

      I also have a Mac Titanium laptop and a 4 year old iMac running OSX and neither of them has has ever had to have a forced re-boot, although I do shut them down when I don't use them for a day or two. The Ti Mac is a great machine for photos and video; much better than the Win2k box. The old iMac has been upgraded with a 120G HD and an added 250M of RAM and is connected to the stereo as our music server.

      --
      All theory is gray
  117. Java apps may get "disappeared" by SP2 by spamania · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just attended a Microsoft-sponsored developers' seminar on the technical details and impact of Windows XP SP2. While most of the day was pretty boring, there was one item of interest regarding Microsoft's new security upgrade, Windows Firewall.*

    When the Firewall is enabled (and it is by default), any application that tries to bind to a port that is not specified as listenable in the firewall configuration will cause a friendly MS dialog to come up, asking the user if they want to allow incoming traffic on the port to be handled by [name of the application]. If the user clicks yes, a rule will be created, allowing the application to use the port. If the user clicks no, the application will be blacklisted, and will not receive inbound trafic from any network interfaces.

    Blacklisted applications are still allowed to bind to ports, so they will not notice anything is wrong; they will just think there is no traffic.

    Guess what happens if the application in question is Java? That's right, the Java Virtual Machine gets banned from listening to the network. Any Java app that subsequently tries to access a port will languish behind the firewall without any prompt to the user alerting him or her that their Java-based server or chat program is being blocked.

    For the savvy, this issue is remedied fairly easily by configuring open ports for any apps that need them. But savvy users have never been Microsoft's target customer group, and one can easily imagine many SP2 initiates being taught the Microsoft way that Java technology just doesn't work.

    Note that .NET applications are not affected by the behavior of Windows Firewall, since they are invoked from distinct executables.

    Food for thought.


    Nate (dateline Dallas-Ft.Worth on lay-over :( )

    * Replaces Internet Connection Firewall, offering simple but relatively (for MS) configurable protection against unsolicited network traffic.

    --
    My other .sig is a troll.
  118. MODERATORS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Christ, how does this fucking flamebaited shit get modded up?

    Someone take care of it, please.

  119. Why not slipstream? by rd_syringe · · Score: 3, Informative

    You'd be saving yourself a chunk of time if you just installed a slipstreamed SP4 Windows 2000 install.

    As for the grandparent, people make a big deal out of simple Windows problems even as they downplay similar Linux problems. I don't even want to detail my network experiences with Slackware, Gentoo, and Red Hat 9. Ugh. We eventually went with XP.

    1. Re:Why not slipstream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      As for the grandparent, people make a big deal out of simple Windows problems even as they downplay similar Linux problems. I don't even want to detail my network experiences with Slackware, Gentoo, and Red Hat 9. Ugh. We eventually went with XP.


      oh yeah? well, as long as you're lying, we replaced all our freebsd with windows 98

    2. Re:Why not slipstream? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even want to detail my network experiences with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Ugh. We eventually went first with Debian and now Gentoo.

      See, anybody can say anything. In my case, it happens to be true!

  120. Ya think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows not quite cutting it? Well, duh!

  121. I don't buy it by tshak · · Score: 1

    Microsoft as practically forced SP2 down the throats of all 90,000+ employees, vendors, and contracters. While there are some "by design" breaking changes in SP2 for the sake of security, I highly doubt that 3 out of 5 machines are breaking during the install, especially by RC2.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  122. Re:2000 XP by Rew190 · · Score: 1

    Explorer crashes on me maybe once a month, and it only happens if I'm doing something weird. I concur with everyone else, though... it's not the OS.

  123. You win! by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    You said "M$." That makes you One Of Us. Here is your sign.

    1. Re:You win! by WNight · · Score: 1

      id Software lost $2.75 million to record-breaking piracy on the weekend before Doom 3's release. Thanks, guys!

      Your sig is a joke right? You don't really believe that, do you?

  124. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHA so you just follow some instructions on a website so they must be correct instructions right? You CANNOT possibly be doing anything wrong then, so it must be XP! Also it cannot be any of those tweak tools that you have installed (considering you probably have a few dozen of them installed)? Of course not! XP IS THE DEVIL!

    Get a fucking clue.

  125. Look... by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    You should be wishing that Microsoft wises up, and that SP2 is great (and it is...the recent Ject trojan didn't affect people who already had SP2 RC installed).

    Clearly, it's just personal vindictiveness on your part. I'll remember what you said the next time Slashdot posts about a Linux kernel exploit. Oh, and remember how Gnome, Gentoo, Debian, Savannah, GNU, and more were hacked within the span of six months last year? How's that for a "wake up call?"

    People who treat operating systems like religions are silly. SP2 is a great update to XP. I still prefer 2000 simply because of its simplicity, but I find it funny that when 2000 was about to be released, all the Slashdotters here were falling over themselves to post about how it was going to fail, and how it was going to be the "final nail in the coffin." Many people scoffed at the several millions of lines of code it has.

    Now, Slashdotters are always praising 2000 as the best Windows release ever. I just find it funny how community opinions contradict themselves, even as each one thinks it's the right one.

  126. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's another beginner tip: maybe some of your instability issues would be resolved if you weren't a complete newby and understood that XP is a solid OS, and thus you're probably the one who doesn't know what's going on if you think it's a bad OS across the board.

    Kids...

  127. You forgot DRM by Farmbubba · · Score: 1

    Companies don't have to worry about you playing CD's on your computer, or time shifting anything if it's a media edition PC.

  128. Re:2000 XP by Rew190 · · Score: 1

    Uh, the parent poster was obviously joking.

    Get a fucking clue.

    Irony.... sigh.

  129. Sure blame the OS for spyware... by dark+druid · · Score: 1

    The article blamed a component named "Winserv" for causing the BSOD. Windows XP doesn't contain any component named "winserv". The first hit on google was for a random piece of spyware http://www.2-spyware.com/file-winserv-exe.html. I think CRN needs to work a bit harder at securing their systems.

  130. windoze sp2 is a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now its proven M$ windoze is virus tojan. Please reformat your hard drive and install Linux .

  131. SP2-RC1 Killed my PC by mh101 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's lots of posts here about how they've have no problems with SP2... Well, I tried installing SP2-RC1 shortly after it became available, and it totally hosed that PC.

    I couldn't even finish booting. XP Setup's recovery option couldn't even run. I had to reinstall XP from scratch, into a new folder, just to boot up. Couldn't install it into the same folder either (I didn't just pop in a bootdisk and delete C:\Windows because I wanted to save some of the files - too much to do via command prompt).

    I then vowed that I wouldn't install SP2 until the final version had been out for a while, and nobody was reporting any problems.

    --
    Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
    1. Re:SP2-RC1 Killed my PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I didn't just pop in a bootdisk and delete C:\Windows because I wanted to save some of the files - too much to do via command prompt).

      Try a knoppix CD next time.

  132. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a tip: By definition, if it's overclocked, it's not running in spec.

    So if you are running something overclocked, and out of spec (by your definition), then how can you blame the OS when you are having problems with it?

  133. Security concerns aside by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think I am going to wait a few weeks before putting SP2 on my XP machines. Let somebody else be the guinea pig, and I will wait for the fixes. Until then, I will just avoid IE, don't click on attachments, and trust in my (Linux) firewall to keep everything else out.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:Security concerns aside by JLSigman · · Score: 1

      Heck, I won't install SP1 on my XP machine. I'm still waiting to hear about all THOSE fixes...

      --
      -jls
      Techno-pagan
  134. Re:2000 XP by Fweeky · · Score: 1
    XP is just flaky.
    \\OENONE has been up for: 19 day(s), 3 hour(s), 52 minute(s), 20 second(s)
    Seems fine from here.
  135. ActiveX by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Man, why not just a simple "emergency" patch to lock down ActiveX? A year ago.

    MS needs to unbundle the activeX settings changes from all the other stuff they're trying in SP2.

    1. Re:ActiveX by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Probobly because if they did that, lots of sites using ActiveX (e.g. corporate intranet sites that use it because a PHB who shouldnt be allowed within 5 miles of a computer decided it would be a good thing to use) would stop working because of the new security permissions (e.g. requiring controls to be signed)

    2. Re:ActiveX by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ActiveX stuff they've already downloaded would still execute, its getting new ones that will be an issue. I mean, whatever MS does there will be issues and they have to do something. Might as well do it piecemeal.

      It blows my mind people are being told to wipe down their computers and reinstall everything just because of spyware. Blows my mind people might be losing stuff like baby pictures or other irreplacable data. Perhaps all this IE nonsense is teaching people how to backup properly.

    3. Re:ActiveX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well do it piecemeal.

      This can cause an insane amount of work for a corporation and if it were the case would be a reason why people would deactivate automatic patching. Better to leae the feature-dumping changes to a very noticeable Service Pack than to a daily patch.

  136. Uninstalling critical updates can also be easy by jesterzog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Very interesting how (relatively) easy it is to uninstall all service packs from Win XP:

    I was recently helping a friend to clean out her XP Home computer. Since she'd bought it no patches of any sort had been applied, and it was at the horrendous state where if she left it alone for a few hours, she'd come back to see a desktop popping full of porn advertisements.

    I downloaded all of the available critical updates from Windows Update and showed her how to run AdAware, which on its own detected and removed something near a thousand suspicious objects. We then took a look around places like the add/remove software section.

    At this point she got quite a shock because about half the listed programs were something called "HotFix". After everything that'd been frustrating her in the past months, she wanted to remove them all immediately. When you've spent the last hour removing porno popup and spyware programs from your computer, something called a "hotfix" does not look like it's supposed to be there. It took a lot of effort to convince her that a Hotfix is actually a Microsoft patch.

    It hadn't occurred to me until then that it's not a particularly intelligent name for what's supposed to be a security patch. Now I start to wonder how many other people out there go ahead and remove the hot fixes because they don't realise that they're not spyware. It'd be very much in Microsoft's interests to consider renaming their critical updates.

    1. Re:Uninstalling critical updates can also be easy by real_smiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what a great point. just underlines how much of a devide there really still is between makers and users. Now you mention it, i wonder what the h*ll those hotfixes (some of which begin "Windows XP hotfix" and others that don't) are doing in amoungst all the users' apps? surely OS components should have their own list or be hidden by a checkbox or something to mark them out as being different, important and basically not be there when a user is looking to make some more hard disk space or whatever..

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    2. Re:Uninstalling critical updates can also be easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xpsp2 separates patches and regular programs in the add/remove programs menu

  137. Re:Microsoft magic numbers [OT] by teslatug · · Score: 2, Informative

    Off topic, but I just wanted to say that Fact Index is one of Wikipedia's mirror sites. If you want the most up to date info and don't like the ads, here's Wikipedia's article directly: Microsoft Bob

  138. You mean activated by default by .+visplek+. · · Score: 1

    Installed a beta of SP2 maybe 2-3 months ago. Worked like a charm, and the new firewall is nice.

    Nice? You mean it's nice they activate it by using an "update"?

    --
    - Save a tree, eat more woodpeckers
    1. Re:You mean activated by default by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the new firewall is nice. It adds stuff that you had tp have ZoneAlarm or a similar product to do, previously.

  139. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can shit a mountain goat, is that close enough or is there some wiggle room here?

  140. Re:Amazing - A faster way to a working system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two possible ways.

    Download a copy of Linux. It will go up and stay running. I know one system that is over 4 years! No reboots - no kidding.

    The second way is similar, download a copy of Linux and load VMWare on it. Then load Microsoft in a virtual window. It evens runs better as the reliance on crappy drivers isn't there. A Windows kernal needs all the help it can get.

    The VMWare on linux offers a quick way to make backups, so when Windows crashes and corrupts the file system you can copy in a backup and restart quickly.

  141. I've been out. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is there anyone who hasn't posted a joke along the lines of "Windows 3.1 still rough around the edges?"

  142. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    How can I blame the OS? Because I can run Windows 2000 on the box just fine. XP has constant crashes in Explorer.exe.

    Obvioulsy, it must be user error. Microsoft never puts out bad software. The media-rich "features" in XP such as integration of a/v playback into the shell couldn't possibly be buggy.

    Neither could the DRM code.

    It's Microsoft. It's the best. I'm a noob. I get it now.

  143. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Professor+S.+Brown · · Score: 0

    Racist! Insulting my name like that.

    --
    Shitram Brown, PhD
    Professor of Mathematics
  144. Linux Zealot on the Loose! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    speaking of inability to read ....

  145. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different OSes use memory differently, and if the memory is defective or out-of-spec, it will fail in different ways. Maybe on W2K, it's just SOL.EXE which crashes, but on XP it's explorer.

    Since 99% of other XP users aren't having continual Explorer.exe crashes it's either you or your hardware. If its a particular use pattern, you ought to be able to isolate it.

    (XP Index Server was hanging with 100% CPU on my box due to some dodgy downloaded divxes, so I'm not claiming that XP is perfect by any means.)

  146. Re:2000 XP by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

    http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=100Lsap&s=bsd

    Just go to small business/lattitude for a supported install of W2K.

    --
    "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  147. No problems here. by Maul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm running SP2 RC2 on my machine here and it is going suprisingly well. I've only had problems with one application (which I was able to resolve by uninstalling and reinstalling it).

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  148. our engineers did it! by real_smiff · · Score: 1
    "CRN Test Center engineers evaluated a release candidate two (RC2) version of SP2... To remedy the problem, CRN Test Center engineers reached out to Microsoft... engineers had to rename "spuninst.txt... Test Center engineers had to open the registry..."

    See! Not their fault, it was their engineers that did it! You see, it takes an engineer to install a service pack.


    God, didn't anyone else get irritated by the way this article was written? I hate people who write about themselves in the third person, it's so self-important.
    What's wrong with "we did this..we did that.. we f**ked up a simple installation of SP2 and had to call MS. Now we're trying to make ourselves feel better by bashing it in our third person writeup".

    (Now i hope SP2 install goes smoothly for me or i'm gonna feel a right tit ;)

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  149. well by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

    I'm running sp2 rc2 and I am running fine. amd 2400 asus a7v333 sb live gf4 4200 no problem, althogh the new secruity center is annoying you have to hunt a little to turn off the automatic warnings when you disable the firewall and use an anti virus that MS does not recognize... For new users it will be a problem finding the "I choose to monitor this myself" option buried 2 menus down, that and on the faceof it many users will not realize that this stops the warning windows on boot.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
  150. 4 for 4 successes for me by cookd · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at Microsoft. They asked us to upgrade our SP1 machines to the latest build of SP2. I started with a test box (for which I have Ghost images), and that went quite well. I moved on to two other boxes that I use for parallel builds (no Ghost images, but nothing lost if they die), and they came back up just great. At that point I was confident enough to upgrade my main system. Again, no trouble. All of my updates were done via the "Windows Update" web site.

    While the first 3 machines were VERY clean machines (essentially XP + patches + antivirus, no other software installed and no major configuration changes), the 4th machine was my work machine -- I've probably installed or uninstalled something from my box every day for the past year (but I'm still on the original install of Windows). While I know how to keep the machine operating well, it definitely isn't a clean box.

    As with any upgrade or patch, there are risks. But I had absolutely no trouble with the upgrade on any of the 4 machines. The only difference is that the firewall pops up a message box every once in a while asking if I want to allow a connection. Oh, the "Settings and Preferences" link from the Antitrust settlement was "restored" (how many times do I have to delete that thing?).

    Nothing is ever perfect, especially with software. But Microsoft has tried very hard to make sure this will work well for everybody. And as far as I can tell, they've done a good job. Yes, there will be some bugs. Yes, you'll want to be careful about applying this to production machines (make backups!). But I think the majority of people will upgrade and have no trouble.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  151. The key has ALWAYS been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. regardless of distro, be it Redhat, Slackware, or Windows, an update of this magnitude is always problematic (anyone that says otherwise is either lucky or full of crap).

    Since the initial release of SP2, I've slipstreamed it into my XP install and have been nothing but impressed. The wireless configuration, security centre, firewall, numerous bug fixes, IE enhancements, improved managability through group policy, and the latest version of Windows Update are all impressive.

    I would never install a SP over top an existing installation. MS has to anticipate the thousands of different configurations, software installations, hardware configurations (thankfully, they've decided to remove some of the more legacy hardware support) that *nix distro's (or more accurately) people who use *nix are smart enough to deal with themselves, or simply accept that they will not work.

    Not to say that I'm letting MS off the hook, for the price of the software, they should anticipate these types of problems, but you don't have to upgrade. Security patches are still released for non-sp2 machines, and it will most likely be years before any mention is made of the "necessity" of moving to SP2 (which, after a given time, is completely within reason).

  152. Also on Drudge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft exploring the sale of SLATE"

    Interesting. I wonder if Microsoft is really making money off its media spinoffs. Maybe they're in a position to burn money on all sorts of things for years to come, but one wonders if they can move into other markets at a time when pure-software companies might not be doing as well as they used to.

  153. You havn't gotten it by Eudial · · Score: 1
    The golden rule of systems upgrades:


    When you upgrade Windows and everything goes to hell, it's Microsofts fault. (crappy programming)

    When you upgrade Linux and everything goes to hell, it's your fault. (incompetent admin)
    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  154. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

    funny enough, I'm sitting here at an XP laptop with mozilla open (about 6 tabs), Outlook Express, Trillian, and McAfee AV running and only using 162Mb RAM.

    With no tweaking at all, the system uses ~121Mb of RAM after booting. After tweaking for slow/low RAM systems, this can easily be reduced to 51Mb.

    For most situations, 256Mb RAM is ok - of course if you want games etc that take 160Mb+ RAM by themselves, then you'll need more to keep performance up.

    --
    Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  155. MOD PARENT UP!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent post is spot-on correct.

  156. "winserv" = Sypware? by Utopia · · Score: 3, Informative

    A message stated that "winserv" was missing.

    winserv is not application which would be needed at boot time.
    It looks like a spyware to me.

    http://www.spyany.com/program/article_spy_rm_IEPlu gin.html seems to confirm my suspisions.

    Obiviuosly SP2 RC2 didn't hose the machine. It was a spyware

  157. The new firewall is a joke by Darth+Gambit · · Score: 1

    At my job we've been working with RC2 and the new firewall is a complete joke. We can turn it off by simply changing a value in the registry. If the full version is like that people won't be as secure as they think.

    1. Re:The new firewall is a joke by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But couldn't someone with write access to the registry do much nastier things than turn off the firewall? That would require (I imagine) administrator privileges, and if untrusted code is running as an admin, you're screwed anyway.

  158. hey you guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    microsoft sucks. linux is the best. ya.

  159. Delay of SP2 = Delay of VPC7 by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of waiting for Service Pack 2 to be released. Why? Everyday SP2 is delayed, Virtual PC 7 for the Mac is delayed even longer. I have a G5, which I'd like to take full advantage of, and the current version of VPC doesn't run on the G5. However, MS refuses to release VPC7 (which supposively included support for native 3D acceleration, the only reason I want it) until a "secure" SP2 can be released.

    Not to be a troll, but don't these people get it? Microsoft and Security is an oxymoron - the two do not go together.

  160. Umm, moderators? by mudshark · · Score: 1

    Parent is not troll. Parent is actually on topic, and insightful.

    Like a laser beam.

    Come on now. A service pack that clobbers device drivers. An installation procedure that the highly clueful are reporting as flawed. And all this pain and teeth-gnashing are necessary to fix dire problems WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED PRIOR TO THE OS RELEASE.

    Please, MS defenders and apologists, do this much: Admit that letting XP into the wild with such a stunning array of holes, flaws and exploitable braindeath was tantamount to the biggest industry bunco job since....

    lessee now...

    ME? 98? ActiveX scripting? OK, I give up, there's no use in hyperbole anymore when the standup comedian has become the running joke.

    sheesh. Imagine all the business and personal productivity that is being sapped by this horseshit. Probably exceeds the GDP of most countries.

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    1. Re:Umm, moderators? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Thanks for getting the point.

  161. yup by TLouden · · Score: 1

    rc2=real crappy too
    but i'm the one that was stupid enough to think that since all MS products are just betas an rc wouldn't be that bad. I had to use knoppix to get my data before reformmating.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  162. No problems here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have it installed on my laptop and absolutely love it.
    It is somewhat nicer than sp1, alot better wireless capabilities.
    I have had no problems with sp2 so far, ithas worked fantasticly for me.

  163. MOD PARENT UP!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP!!!!

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

  164. Same shit different day by r_j_prahad · · Score: 1

    I just spent the last four days upgrading my ancient (but trustworthy) Win98SE to WinXP SP1. I'm still somewhat in a state of shock and disbelief, but I got nailed by a virus in the middle of the first install - before I had the opportunity to get the damn thing locked down, even. Last night Norton found more than 1200 infected files, and then refused to ever run again. I couldn't kill my dialup connection, and it's pumping mucho beaucoup traffic out the phone line to who knows where - so much traffic I can't even connect to any other site without a timeout.

    I'm on my second install, so far with no noticeable problems. Yet. Looks like SP2 is going to carry on the family tradition, eh?

    1. Re:Same shit different day by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      So your blaming microsoft because you don't have a firewall? If you had a firewall you wouldn't have gotten hit by a virus because it wouldn't have gotten to your box.

  165. Outlook busted by cabra771 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I installed SP2 RC2 on my machine at work to test it with our latest application we're building. While I only had issues configuring my firewall to allow port 80 traffic, it did kill my Outlook. We are required to use Outlook so I don't have any choice on swapping over to Firebird or any other alternative, but anyway...now I only have a 10 minute check for email from our Exchange server. If I want to check for urgent emails I otherwise need to shutdown and restart Outlook over and over. It gets very not fun after 3 hours. I suppose I could remove SP2 for now, but who knows what kind of effect that would have on my workstation.

    --

    -my other sig is your mom
    1. Re:Outlook busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We are required to use Outlook so I don't have any choice on swapping over to Firebird or any other alternative

      What about Outlook Web Access? Most of the base functionality is included, without preference to browser or operating system.

  166. Nonsense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent OS, my ass.

    Windows 2000 sucks. It is horribly broken. Give it 3 months and stops working, no matter how much care you take.

    I am sick and tired of all the Microsoft shills posting on slashdot. They are flooding the place and it makes me sick.

    1. Re:Nonsense... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      My current Windows 2000 system is almost a year old and totally stable, despite having had dozens of applications, games, utilities and codecs installed upon it. The system it replaced (now relegated to a lesser role) was also rock solid and performed admirably as an everyday workstation for over two years.

      How does me relaying my positive experiences with Windows 2000 make me a Microsoft shill? If this story was about Fedora and I was defending a great Red Hat product would that make me a Red Hat shill?

      Just because you clearly hate Microsoft thet doesn't make Windows 2000 a bad product. The fact that you venom is so potent that even the slightest praise of a Microsoft product makes you "sick" is a clear indication that your judgement is clouded by your emotions and that you can't be objective.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  167. User testbed but Microsoft reaps the profits by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    The fact that the "Release Candidate" of anything screws up a few boxes is no great shock. I just object to Microsoft's verbal garnishing of the truth - lets face it, it's "Service Pack 2 Beta 2".

    What does amaze me is how Microsoft has a large percentage of it's userbase paying for it's software and it's support but willing to act as unpaid testers for it's software - it seems to me Microsoft have the best of both worlds and it's userbase in the palm of their hands.

    Assisting unpaid Open Source programmers with beta testing of new versions is a laudable action but when you pay Microsoft for a service, they have a duty to deliver that to you without any reliance on your devoting time and energy to assist them.

    No matter who you are or where you are, you don't use Microsoft - Microsoft uses you.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  168. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by telstar · · Score: 1

    What were you drinking tonight?

  169. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP is just flaky. The only machine I've seen it run smoothly on, and even then it still had problems, was a fancy-pants Dell at some office job. On my home computer, which is all overclocked and has neon and stuff, XP is a nightmare.

    Oh come on, how the fuck is that insightful?

    The loser is over-clocking their machine and then trying to pin the blame for flakiness on Windows XP.

  170. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only problem I have been having with XP is one you describe: explorer.exe blowing up.

    That's not normal, by any means... you've got flaky hardware or crap drivers. I can't remember the last time that the explorer.exe process crashed on my (multiple) Win2k/WinXP boxes.

    Run something like the Prime95 client for a week and see if you can get it to run without reporting any errors.

  171. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's another beginner tip: maybe some of your instability issues would be resolved if you weren't a complete newby and understood that XP is a solid OS, and thus you're probably the one who doesn't know what's going on if you think it's a bad OS across the board.

    It's the same old story year-after-year. People buy crap hardware from vendors that nobody else has heard of because they can save $5 on a $500 purchase. Then they're surprised when the drivers are flaky or the machine constantly crashes, reboots, and throws weird errors.

    The only right solution is to check your hardware against Microsoft's HCL (Hardware Compatibility List). If it ain't on the list, it's a crap-shoot whether it's going to work properly.

    (The HCL has been around since the days of Win95 and NT4...)

  172. Actually have admins who want it by rppp01 · · Score: 1

    I work in an environment where doing anything requires close to an act of god.

    With our unix systems, this can be tedious. We have to pass in a lot of paperwork in order to get things through.

    But the Windows guys, they hope the systems lock up. That way they can reboot, install a patch or 2, reboot and off they go. No extra paperwork, meetings or nothing.

    At first, I didn't know if they were serious or not. Now I am convinced they might be onto something... /off to write bluescreen.ksh for my *nix boxen

    --
    They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
  173. Re:magic by ndverdo · · Score: 1

    The main thing about SP2, besides the security improvements is really the stability. Your average XP2 SP1 machine could get an update of maybe around 3 days under heavy multi-application load.

    XP2 SP2 RC1 and RC2 keep going for >13 days with record 20 under the same load conditions.

    They seem to have rolled much of the Windows 2003 server performance cleanup into it which was initially skipped with the hastened release of XP.

  174. Re:2000 XP by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    19 days! All bow before this machine of such incredible reliability!
    MS work to lower people's expectation of computer reliability seems to be working.

  175. Re:2000 XP by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    It's not common, but I've had it happen to me several times on perfectly good machines.

  176. Rhetorical Advice? by serutan · · Score: 1

    "Before applying Service Pack 2, make sure a full backup of the PC is implemented. "

    As if they think anybody who has read this article is going to actually install SP2???

  177. Exactly. It's worse now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, that's right. Now, Office XP has a whole side-panel wizard-thing to annoy you during every possible task.

  178. Re:vmware - common hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't vmware emulate some of the most common hardware around, though?

  179. just what I was going to say by kardar · · Score: 1

    I thought that Linux was supposed to be a pain!

    And I thought that Windows was supposed to be user friendly.

    While you may have to configure Linux, and while the configuration details might have a learning curve, they are by no means anything even resembling uncharted territory - what you need to do to configure Linux is actually documented fairly well, if you know where to look.

    But this kind of registry editing and the thing with the renaming of the file and running some batch job -- this is uncharted territory. It's not something that you didn't know before, and had to learn. It's not something that was always there (e.g. /etc/motd) but you didn't realize it was there. This is uncharted territory, and it's just plain bad engineering.

    Linux is easier, it seems, than this. Perhaps the real answer is that getting Linux "just right" involves some experimentation, and that there is an ever-present learning curve with Linux. Aside from that, it's consistent. It always boils down to some file that you didn't know about or some place where you can set some setting that you had to learn about.

    The desciption in this article is just downright scary. I'm sticking with Linux, thanks. Actually, I should say GNU/Linux or other modern Unix-like OS's such as the BSDs - if I am going to be precise about it. There is a learning curve, yes... but once you are over that part of it, which does take a while, it's a very comfortable place to be.

  180. Re:2000 XP by Worminater · · Score: 1

    I personally use LiteStep. On XP platform, ive had litestep running for ~2 years now (with others before/since) but I just tend to come back to it for its functionality and lack of bloat. Something about opensource projects that are far superious that I enjoy... :)

  181. Mos Parent Up - more stuff on virtual pc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's really bad news. Because, as some of you might not know, virtual pc 6 doesn't run on the G5. That means no pc emulator for the g5 except the dosbox with radnor.

    Apple should pressure MS to hurry up! They could release virtual pc for win2k, linux, dos, win98 and xpsp1 now and patch it later for sp2.

    Microsoft really is always late in introducing it's products.

    Now is the chance to develop a pc emulator for the g5 and sell it before MS brings vpc 7. -> 3.Profit!

  182. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal with explorer.exe crashing? If it does it will come back up automatically and if it dosn't just restart it manually...

  183. Biting off more than they, or anyone, can chew by scupper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing new from this cube, just wondering why Microsoft is once again biting off more than it can chew with trying to tackle so many upgrades and patches with XP SP2.

    It seems unnecessary to have to make one gargantuan service pack, instead of releasing smaller service packs semi-annually, some being small, some being large depending on the demands/vulnerabilities discovered during the 6 month cycle.

    They could also focus on enterprise service packs and desktop service packs separately.

    Ther just doesn't seem to be any middle ground; there's linux distros and their apps which weekly release patches/upgrades, and then there's Microbloat at the opposite end of the spectrum.

    Like I said, nothing new from this cube that hasn't been laid out here before, just seems like common sense isn't being applied at Redmond, and it doesn't make sense, because common sense is open source, free!

  184. Re:Microsoft magic numbers [OT] by Alien54 · · Score: 1

    One of these days I'll put my Microsoft Bob t-shirt up for sale on Ebay just to see how much it might fetch

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  185. Re:2000 XP by apoupc · · Score: 1
    I even have NEON, so how can it be my system?

    He forgot to add a huge spoiler for extra performance.

  186. Overheating? Dodgy hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sure it's not just overheating and turning itself off? How do you know it's a software (ie: Windows) problem and not a hardware problem?

  187. question of handling large files by gordo3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I usually manage and around several hundred large files(all in excess of 300 megs) and almost always, when accessing where they are or moving them from one harddrive to the next I finish my work fine but then for some reason, explorer continues to use 99% of my processor(2.4 p4). At first, I had no idea what it was doing so I let it run for a few hours and nothing happned so I crashed explorer and started it again, problem fixed but about as annoying as anything. Have you ever tried to bring up the task manager and do something when you processor is devoted to a program doing nothing!

    I was wondering if anyone had/has this problem and if anything in SP2 adresses it. At least half the time I open a folder with large files or play a file(these are mostly movies), and every time I try to copy something this happens. It actually happens so much I always as a precaution regulate explorer to the lowest priority setting so in case I need to save info before ending explorer and brining it back up I can save data in important applications that are running. I think its ridiculous that i have to put up with this and I find it disgusting that when linux can handle those big, scary files, windows barfs on them every time.

    Now that I am calm again, any help or recommendations would be appreciated and if SP2 actually adresses this. I wrote a pissy letter to MS about it when it happened and then realized, they don't actually care. I got my comptuer with windows on it, it was a laptop or else that would have never happened and I think they know that when they get a pissy, technically competent letter.

    1. Re:question of handling large files by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      There is an indexer of some sort that flips through all of the files on your drives. Turn this off. (I'd look up the details, but I'm typing this from Win2k. But I think it is either under Administrative Tools in the control panel, or perhaps under the 'properties' selection for the individual drive. But it's MS, so who the hell knows where it really is.)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  188. Survival of the fittest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP SP2 should be allowed in the wild. That way, the systems that are least fit to survive in this Microsoft environment will be weeded out. It's a matter of simple genetics.

    - a.c.

  189. And let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Quaternion Folk.

    - a.c.

  190. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It happenns to me all the time, it is just that explorer.exe will not tell you it has crashed, but silently restart. You will notice the explorer GUI freeze up, and then the screen be redrawn (blink and you will miss it). That is actually explorer crashing and restarting.

  191. People are still using Microsoft Products? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply amazing. Solid, well thought out alternatives exist.

    And they're free.

    You don't even need an MCSE - just the ability to read and think.

  192. Weird by sheldon · · Score: 2, Informative

    At our company, our login script will call a PERSONAL.BAT file if it exists in your user directory.

    So I have the login script change registry entry preferences for things that I find exceedingly annoying. Like now I have explorer default to detailed view, show hidden files, yada yada...

    If we had clippy showing up, that preference would have been in my personal login script.

    I take it you don't know how to do something similar?

    1. Re:Weird by smallguy78 · · Score: 0

      or setup each pc from a ghosted image that has clippy turned off

      --
      Nothing costs nothing
    2. Re:Weird by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That only works if you have permissions to change the registry. Kind of a Catch-22 in companies that truly believe in security. (I'll ignore the hypocrisy of that statement in relation to running windows in the first place...:)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  193. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > this can easily be reduced to 51Mb.

    Please share! I'm IT director for a company with 140 Sony Vaio laptops. Sony crippled that model so they won't take over 64 Mbytes of RAM, and XP is a complete performance pig. I've already received death threats and a couple of dead cats on my front porch.

  194. Re:2000 XP by Fweeky · · Score: 1

    Er, look; this machine runs 24/7 between me upgrading/fiddling with hardware and applying updates. It doesn't crash, it doesn't start to feel flaky after a few weeks, it just works. It's not the most stable or secure OS's about, but it makes a perfectly usable desktop that you don't need to reboot daily. It's certainly at least as stable as 2000 in my experience.

  195. Re:2000 XP by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    Just joking with you - it's just that the uptime of any even slightly reliable server tends to get measured in months and years, rather than days, but for a desktop that's pretty good.

  196. Re:2000 XP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The contents of the system tray are lost when that happens, which is a real drag when you have utilities which you cannot access any way other than through the tray. You then have to kill and restart them (where that is even possible) to get them to come back. This deficiency of the system tray is one of the things that pisses me off most about windows - broken by design.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  197. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    I didn't know that Newegg was a crap vendor, that AMD made crap processors, and that Abit made crap motherboards, and that Kingston made crap RAM, and that Seagate made crap hard drives, and ATI made crap video cards. Thanks for setting me straight.

  198. Re:2000 XP by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    I believe the new term in XP is "System Notification Area." I get the feeling they call it that in an attempt to dissuade every program you install from feeling obliged to put their icons down there. Also, that auto-hide feature seems to be trying to achieve the same goal.

    Wait, I better say "yes, I know I can turn auto hide off" before the Microsoft AC Astroturf Patrol comes back and tells me that when my XP box fails, it's 100% my fault and has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft employees are trolling Slashdot rather than building a better OS.

  199. Re:2000 XP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The auto-hiding of unused icons seems to me to be encouragement to put more icons in the system tray. After all, now they won't be annoying the user for no reason.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  200. Re:2000 XP by Fweeky · · Score: 1

    Sure, but even servers tend to go down for upgrades. The last time I powered off my desktop was to install a USB card; one before that was probably for new graphics drivers. Drivers for SCSI RAID cards tend to have longer cycle times, and desktops rarely have important reasons why they can't go down for 5 minutes :)

  201. Re:2000 XP by NaDrew · · Score: 1
    The contents of the system tray are lost when that happens, which is a real drag when you have utilities which you cannot access any way other than through the tray.
    Enable "Launch folder windows in a separate process" under Tools - Folder Options - View. This will, as the option suggests, keep the "master" explorer.exe (the one that among other things displays the desktop and system tray) separate from any new folder windows. If a folder view crashes (happens to me when a network resource suddenly becomes unavailable) it will not affect the parent desktop. The resource cost is minimal.
    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  202. Re:2000 XP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I have that turned on already. My folder views rarely die (except when I kill them because they hung while trying to generate thumbnails) and in fact my master explorer.exe dies probably 20 times more often than my folder windows.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  203. Please mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, uninsightful.

  204. Re:Serivce Pack 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, that guy was making fun of your name not your race. For a PhD you're fuckin stupid . . .

  205. Re:2000 XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then, that solves it: you don't know what you're doing. Stick to PS2.

  206. Why? --> Corporate environments by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    I suspect a good reason you still hear so much venom about Clippy is the large number of us stuck 8+ hours a day in corporate environments where the IT departments are not enlightened enough to either let us use our own settings or to not install the Office "assistant" in the first place. Every time I'm using an Office program (and yes, there are many of us drone types in the world at large who have to use such things) and my finger happens to hit F1, up pops Clippy! Ready to Help!

    Sure, those of us using our home systems don't have much to complain about in terms of 1998 or 2000 technology. But remember that there are many of us stuck using software chosen by others. So while you haven't had to deal with Clippy "in five years" (lucky bastard), I see him with disgusting, irritating frequency. :p

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  207. All things to all people by timrichardson · · Score: 1

    I work at a big company. Many people seem to enjoy Clippy and his bretheren. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the option to change Clippy to other characters give people a sense of control over their computer. Maybe even over their lives. Other people like to change the color of their mobile phone shell. I don't get it. But then, I have to remember to iron my shirts.
    One thing Microsoft is still doing is making monolithic software. A huge, do-everything for everyone OS. Huge do-everything for everyone "productivity suits". Surely this is where they will eventually fail. At some point they will not sustain backwards compatibility, ease of use and still satisfy more sophisticated users.
    And yes, Clippy is a fine symbol for this philosophy.

  208. He made it back into XP home as a dog by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    Every time I fix someone's PC and do a find from windows explorer there's clippy's little dog trying to help me find files on the computer. Seriously, I don't need his help.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  209. Re:my XP has never crashed... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 0

    and i do mean NEVER. i have cable internet so my machine is up for a month or more at a time. the only time i reboot is when my firewall has updates and prompts for a restart or when i go out of town and then i turn the machine off. i have had it for 1 year now. i do heavy C++ work, openGL custom apps, play the latest video games, run photoshop, dreamweaver etc etc. i guess this comes back to some of the past posts.... windows as easy to maintain and use in general it still requires someone using it the know how to keep it up and running, spam free, spyware free and virus free. probably half of the windows owners dont really know what spyware is much less how to get rid of it or that they can prompt themselves to allow or block cookies(some of them can be spyware) when visiting a website that tries to store cookies on their machine. for me i know how to keep my machine up and it has never failed.

  210. XP SP2 by liquidsgi · · Score: 1

    It seems to be as if Microsoft might be trying to do too much with just a service pack. They are attempting to basically morph the OS into more of a firewall enabled secure environment that one might see in Debian for example. I have also heard that these blockages have also pushed longhorn's development out as well as the blockages that they are hitting in SP2 are directly affecting the coding for Longhorn. Not sure, but it does seem as if Microsoft needs some new blood in their programming department.

  211. Re:4 for 4 -- Well with McAfee Firewall it won't by bpechter · · Score: 1
    Two for two no boot after McAfee Firewall was installed.

    Luckily I could reinstall one (it was a clean install before that) and the other one I was able to get into safe mode and deinstall that program.

    So far I'm not impressed.

    Bill

  212. Re: Complex men by feed_those_kitties · · Score: 1
    Please, don't ask me what Complex men might use - I've not thought this through well enough to cope with that

    Men are not complex, men are simple.

    Women are complex, (or so I've been told...)

  213. Hear Hear!! by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    I fully agree, I haven't had windows crash in a good two years. I do quite a bit with it too: games, 3d animation, graphic design (photoshop etc), heavy web usage etc. Sure apps crash, but they haven't brought windows down with them yet.

    Im.

  214. license to upgrade by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    They know what customers want. They try to give them the cheapest, most upgradeable (broken) version of that. It's the last part that bites them, because that's where M$ actually competes with its customers interests.

    A less predatory license would be identifiable by more accurate, informative version numbers. Major version numbers would have possibly incompatible file/data formats or APIs. Minor versions would have possibly different GUIs, possibly requiring retraining. And patchlevels would just have bugfixes or additional features. And the overall version would be the month and year of release, with a marketing nickname: the "edition". Licenses would be sold in terms of included upgrades per version number. All patches of a single major.minor version would be included in any license. A more expensive (minor) license would include all revisions to GUIs. Next more expensive would be a major version license, including upgrades that prevent different versions from using the same data files, transmissions or IPC. And the most expensive license would be for editions, all changes until marketing decides to yank everyone by changing the name of the product. Everyone would know by the version or edition number whether they were compatible with one another. And there would be less incoherent upgrades. The clarification of all the upgrades and licenses would let the companies sell more licenses, which means money in advance to pay for upgrades. And that means better upgrade revisions, and less bait-and-switch planned obsolescence.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  215. uh....it took u this long to notice by toolshed7 · · Score: 0

    Windows and Linux is just like sports. We all have a team we pull for, I dont jump and say "Awesome Shaq just got traded to the Eastern Conference. The East will be stronger now." No, dumbass...I get pissed off because I am Celtics fan and I know the Championships always goes through Shaq.

    think about it....(and done)....they say it.

    --


    Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
  216. Thank Eris!!! by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
    The reason MS tries to bundle large changes into Service Packs is that testing compatibility for all the possible combinations of small hotfixes is a) impossible, and b) expensive.

    At least with big chunks all those parts have been (reasonably) thoroughly tested to work with *each other*.

    Also, if you look at the guts of what they're doing, it's not that easy to just split things apart. The new firewall is more than just turning on the old one, it requires changes all over the place to improve its security and effectiveness.

    Of course, most people aren't going to realize that they're effectively getting a whole new OS rather than a patch...

  217. Clippy Lives Big Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are apparently unaware that at least 1/4 of computers out there in the real world are running Windows 98 and that people such as developers and support techs have little choice but to continue working with Windows 98 on a regular basis.

    So for some it is indeed still 1998 and Clippy and BSODS are regular parts of the Windows experience. You see they haven't been replaced yet, they're still "there" if you see, does that help?

    Why do people continue to refer to Clippy even though he's been reduced to only 1/4 of machines? I have one word for you to meditate on: patronizing... see how it feels?

  218. Everyone switch to OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call for everyone to switch to OS X then you won't see these problems and end up with a stable unix box with a pretty GUI and rock solid hardware!

    Try out Tiger (OS 10.4) when it comes out!!

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/

    Apple used to really suck but have come a far far way and its only going to get better, so if you haven't taken a look at Apple lately, give them a try!

    -DB

  219. "KISS" Keep It Simple Stupid by KB1GHC · · Score: 1

    I'm still pissed off about WinXP, if you don't have WinXP, you can't get the latest and greatest DirectX, or use the latest and greatest hardware, BUT if you have WinXP, you can't use some old software, and drivers for old hardware don't work, like i have 1 digital camera, and 1 webcam, that don't have updated drivers for them, so i can't use them on XP. Microsoft needs to realise only the hackers revolve around them, not the whole world. Nobody wants to fix MS errors.

    .

    SP2 = Security Problems x2

    .

  220. How did you get SP4? by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 1
    What's really amazing is that you've got SP4 when the rest of us are still waiting for SP2.

    --
    Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
  221. was the dog a clippy skin / alternate? by Epu · · Score: 1

    is the dog a clippy alternative? like, a skin of clippy? the friendly non-biting version?