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."
Neat! This is the best thing to happen to the internet in years.
Windows XP SP2... codename Longhorn =)
Actually the computers not turning back on is one of the new security features....
That's 40% and pretty decent for M$.
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.
Installed a beta of SP2 maybe 2-3 months ago. Worked like a charm, and the new firewall is nice.
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!
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.
You can download RC3 here. The upgrade time is even shorter than SP2 if you do a "take over disk" method!
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)
I installed SP2 on a vmware virtual machine. No problems with that yet.
Come on, I'm not crazy.
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.
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
>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.
Valuable is the man who shits ram . . .
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
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.
Yeah, SP4 has an uninstaller. It's called Fedora Core 2 Disk 1.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
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.
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.
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
Service Pack 4 Permits You to Remove the Service Pack by Using the Recovery Console
no that would make it bull Security Hardened Internet Technology
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
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-.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
A message stated that "winserv" was missing.
u gin.html seems to confirm my suspisions.
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_IEPl
Obiviuosly SP2 RC2 didn't hose the machine. It was a spyware