Slashdot Mirror


Windows XP SP2 Goes Gold

writertype writes "PC Magazine reports that Microsoft has released Windows XP SP2 to PC OEMs after a two-day delay. A package of stories, complete with an exploration of the new update, is here. The best way for users to get the update, according to Microsoft, is to have Windows Update turned on; a CD version will be made available." Reader Critical_ writes "With all the news of SP2 being delayed, it seems like Microsoft may have pulled a rabbit out of its hat by releasing RTM on its WindowsBeta site. Neowin has a screenshot of the download page and MSFN has the release information. The final build is 2180. For those who can't download it for whatever reason, Microsoft is giving away free CDs here. Happy installing."

485 comments

  1. Holy Crap! by z0ink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft (almost) made it close to an original deadline? Whats next ... Linus will turn out to be secretly controlled by evil corporate overlord masters?

    --
    Steal This Sig
    1. Re:Holy Crap! by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Microsoft (almost) made it close to an original deadline?"
      Close is such a relative word.
      Wasn't the very original deadline sometime mid-last year?

    2. Re:Holy Crap! by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Still, its closer than usual?

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    3. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall it being August 2003.

    4. Re:Holy Crap! by JPriest · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since the windows beta site seems to be down, here is the BitTorrent link

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need some help seeding also.

    6. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. It's not just that... one of the things it fixes is the Content-Type HTTP header handling - the specification for which was published five years ago.

    7. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virii is not a word. You mean "viruses".

    8. Re:Holy Crap! by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Beta? You're suggesting that people install a *beta* service pack?!?!

    9. Re:Holy Crap! by JPriest · · Score: 1
      No, MS offered the final build (2180) to the Windows beta site. Currently that, and BitTorrent are the only places to obtain a final copy of SP2

      "by releasing RTM on its WindowsBeta site."

      It was in the article summary.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    10. Re:Holy Crap! by NineNine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, but that article is just from some little shit blog. You don't know if you're getting the real thing unless you get it directly.

    11. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a virii?, I've never come across one of those before, let alone 50 bazillion.

    12. Re:Holy Crap! by bn557 · · Score: 1

      I believe 50 bazillion translates from 14 year old into 8 in the real world. (No, I don't have any fact to back that 8 up, it was an arbitrary number I pulled from deep within my shoe. I'm saving the prime and irrational numbers for posts where they're worth using)

      P

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
    13. Re:Holy Crap! by burns210 · · Score: 1

      "Linus will turn out to be secretly controlled by evil corporate overlord masters?"

      Yea, but the weird thing is is that the corporation outsources to Sovient Russia!

    14. Re:Holy Crap! by JPriest · · Score: 1

      How is getting a service pack from a 3rd party mirror much different than apt-getting or downloading rpm's from a 3rd party mirror?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    15. Re:Holy Crap! by jrockway · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a good point, as long as the digital signatures are correct you should be OK.

      --
      My other car is first.
    16. Re:Holy Crap! by mitsuhama · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our evil corporate overlord masters.

    17. Re:Holy Crap! by Super+Boboli · · Score: 1

      AHAHHAAHAHA! OMG THAT IS JUST TOO FUNNY! Seriously, I mean they almost made it close to an original deadline!! That's just too funny, I'm dyin, really. You are the ultimate of wit and humor.

    18. Re:Holy Crap! by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      I'll begin seeding as soon as it finishs downloading.

      Damnit I wish Microsoft couple put MD5 hashes of files... *sigh*

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    19. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're new to this torrent thing, right?

      You need to do more then just upload the torrent, somebody needs to get in there and seed for a bit...

    20. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    21. Re:Holy Crap! by mvdwege · · Score: 0

      Well, since their initial release date was 'Mid-2004' it is not hard for them to not slip their deadline.

      Typical for Microsoft actually, set expectations low so that the fanboys can crow about the eventual 'accomplishment'.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    22. Re:Holy Crap! by Ckwop · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your hash sir: 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

      Simon.

    23. Re:Holy Crap! by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      File Properties -> Digital Signatures.

      Should confirm it's signed and authenticated with the Microsoft certificates installed on your Windows setup.

    24. Re:Holy Crap! by NineNine · · Score: 1

      It isn't. I don't apt-get or download RPM's from non-official mirrors, either. Good luck if you do.

    25. Re:Holy Crap! by bastardadmin · · Score: 1

      Quoth the AC Parent: "...if they can't even release their own software on time, and when they do release it, it doesn't even have all the bugs worked out..."

      Obviously you are a veteran of the software development industry. Tell about all those timely, bug free launches of a full commercial OS (not just a kernel) that you were involved in.

      #the reply above contains high levels of sarcasm
      #if you are unsure how to handle this, use caution

  2. Go back to green by setzman · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    C:\>
    1. Re:Go back to green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, that link has the s-word in it.

    2. Re:Go back to green by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soemone mod parent back up. If it saves even one person from the horrific yellow color scheme, it's worth all of wasted time of the people (including me) who already knew how escape.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    3. Re:Go back to green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you do in that phenomenal link that made a difference and how can I automate it in Mozilla/Firefox?

    4. Re:Go back to green by optikSmoke · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new fix-the-putrescent-yellow-colour-scheme overlords.

      Frankly, if just such a link were posted on every single story in the IT section, I wouldn't be one to complain for the convenience.

    5. Re:Go back to green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot
      News for Nerds. Golden Showers.

    6. Re:Go back to green by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 2, Informative

      In case you (or someone else) is really not sure, changing "it.slashdot.org" to "anythingelse.slashdot.org" is what you need to do. Not sure how to automate that; I've just been muanually fixing the url after clicking on any link to an it.slashdot page (and why is this there anyway? xp sp2 is important to plenty of non-IT people).

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    7. Re:Go back to green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This calls for a Firefox extension!

    8. Re:Go back to green by Shinglor · · Score: 2

      I may be the only one but I really like this new colour scheme, except for the gradients on the headings. For reading comments I think it looks really good, seriously.

    9. Re:Go back to green by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about graphic design knows that putting beige text on a light beige background is going to be hard on the eyes. It may look kind of nifty but it's hard to read, hence a pretty stupid idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Go back to green by jrockway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm, back on my Linux box (which has two old CRT's with the brightness almost all the way down) it.slashdot.org looks fine, but here on my new Powerbook (with an _uber-bright_ LCD) I can't see a damn thing. As a subscriber, I petition the editors to CHANGE THE COLOUR SCHEME.

      Hell, do we really need an IT section? It is what it is? Can we go back to the real slashdot PLEASE?

      --
      My other car is first.
    11. Re:Go back to green by caluml · · Score: 1

      Yep. It doesn't look good on an LCD laptop screen here.

    12. Re:Go back to green by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Well, I suspect it.slashdot.org and linux.slashdot.org were meant to cover stories that didn't fit in apache, apple, ask, books, bsd, developers, games, interviews, science, or yro. This way, they COULD make sure everything HAD a section, and they could make something not front page worthy, but not fitting in one of those categories, fit somewhere. IT is the generic category now, instead of Articles (which IS the front page).

    13. Re:Go back to green by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Try going into your preferences and selecting the "low bandwidth" mode. This gets rid of 90% of the junk leaving you with the occasional ugly coloured bar and for the most part straight black text on white paper - exactly as God (that's Tim Berners Lee in this case) intended.

      I've been using LB mode pretty much since I started reading /., it's so much nicer.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Go back to green by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about graphic design knows that putting
      > beige text on a light beige background is going to be hard on the eyes.

      Depends how sensitive your eyes are to light.

      What anyone who knows anything whatsoever about graphic design ought to know
      is that the color choices of 98.75% of all websites are horrible, and any
      sensible person who has to sit in fron of a browser for long hours first
      turns off page colors and forces his own color preferences on all sites.
      This doesn't help with images, so sites that are mostly graphics will still
      be hard on the eyes, but sites like /. that are mostly text are considerably
      better this way.

      Personally, I favor #FFE6BC text on a #294D4A background, but you can set
      your browser to whatever colors you like.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    15. Re:Go back to green by osvejda · · Score: 1

      Not sure how to automate that

      You can use the RSS feed. All the links there are just http://slashdot.org/*

    16. Re:Go back to green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faggot.

    17. Re:Go back to green by vicviper · · Score: 1

      You could use the rss feed links. They're all green for me.

    18. Re:Go back to green by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Anyone who knows anything whatsoever about graphic design knows ...

      that you use high-contrast for what you want to be easily readable and low contrast (like beige on light beige) for stuff that needs to be there but shouldn't draw that much attention to itself.

      Looks to me like the scheme is doing what it should be doing. More emphasis on the comments and less on who posted them (and the links that are always there in the same places).

    19. Re:Go back to green by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      Ok, I did't know that everything had to have a section now. That makes more sense.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
  3. Wow... by cuberat · · Score: 0

    Everything looks so weird with no comments...

    --

    I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!

  4. And Re-Installing from scratch by phiberhack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    :-/ doh!~

  5. In other news by sparcnut · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
    1. Re:In other news by Orgazmus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it a bird?
      Is it a plane?

      NO! Its a fucking pig flying over my head! Make it go away!

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    2. Re:In other news by CmdrMooCow · · Score: 1

      I made the mistake of taking a drink while reading that.

      (:

    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just playin doom 3 and I can assure you that hell is in fact quite warm...

    4. Re:In other news by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if you thought the birds treated your car badly, just wait...

      --
    5. Re:In other news by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures.

      It was rather cool and rainy around here today. Quite unseasonable.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:In other news by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures."

      Whoa. I just got sound working in KDE!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can verify this. It is unseasonably chilly here in Ohio.

  6. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    does anyone know what incompatibilities it introduces yet?

    I'm a sysadmin mulling over exactly when 'enough people' will have tested it to deploy and roll out myself.

    Jabba the Lawyer

    1. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      me! i don't mind reformating this harddrive(i have a backup) so i'll probably just go test that now....

    2. Re:So by allio · · Score: 1

      Keep us posted.

    3. Re:So by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it will let you install it on an installation using one of the well-known CD-keys. However, I've heard reports that Windows Update will then refuse to let you download further updates.

    4. Re:So by 0racle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm waiting 2 weeks. There should be enough people running many different apps in many different situations that a major problem should have popped up by then, of course they better make it public when(if) they do.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:So by ir8monkey · · Score: 1

      works fine, installed it yesterday. ugh..i mean i was testing it on hunch that fake keys wont work..of course I bought a legit copy...

    6. Re:So by wfberg · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to that msfn.org site, Microsoft has now announced that SP2 will install on all but the PCs that were also blocked from SP1.

      So, if SP1 will install, so will SP2.

      In the interest of preventing other people from getting their computers hacked into to form a botnet and DDOS the planet, check out how to change the CD key and a list of CD keys.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    7. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh thats just brainfuck you retard

    8. Re:So by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are a sysadmin and you don't have any test boxes?

    9. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you rule!

      The only other cool thing would be an eDonkey hash link to XPKey.exe

    10. Re:So by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      You're the second person to mention the DDOS thing...is that just rumor or what?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    11. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My copy of XPKey.exe is 48K bytes, dated Jan 25, 2003, and has an md5sum of '4345bb04307870d17c6f44893a81f85e'

    12. Re:So by hazem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but why rush to wreck them when you can let other people do it! If anything, it's a waste of time to test it when you can wait to find out problems may affect you. Hopefully the rest of your infrastructure is secure enough to weather another 2 weeks without SP2. If not, you have bigger problems!

    13. Re:So by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rush to wreck them? That's the whole purpose of the machine, to test if things work you your environments specific conditions or go boom. If it goes boom, you re-ghost it. It doesn't take long at all.

    14. Re:So by typhoonius · · Score: 3, Informative

      I installed the beta of Windows Update v5 on a computer with a warezed copy of Windows XP, and while it installed fine, it wouldn't let me check for updates because it detected the pirate product key.

      Interestingly, I tried to connect just now, and it downloaded the final version of Windows Update v5 and let me download an critical IE security patch. It looks like they've softened their stance again (throughout SP2's long and storied development cycle, they've been back and forth over whether they'd allow pirated copies to grab the update).

    15. Re:So by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a point, but that still takes time. Unless I had a dire need to get SP2 tested and on my systems, I'd let the dust clear a bit. There will most likely be some problems, and I have other things I can be doing than test it now and then have to test it again later. I suppose that makes me a leech on the work of other harder-working people.

    16. Re:So by roror · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd post it anonymously if I'd post it all.

    17. Re:So by Maserati · · Score: 1
      One word answer: Budgets. Every sysadmin worth his or her salt wants a hot-spare for every model of server in production. But you can't always afford an extra $BIGASSSERVER that will be lying around. If you have smart suits (not a given) you'll get it approved, if you don't you make do.

      Speaking of spare servers, how many out there have the luxury of testing your backups by doing a full restore on a spare machine to see if it'll even boot ?
      <crickets>
      I did that to a CEO's desktop machine once, impressed the hell out of him. Pity they went out of business anyway, they were the rare smart suits.
      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    18. Re:So by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      It's Ms the question should be what works not what doesn't work :)

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    19. Re:So by galaga79 · · Score: 1

      At my work where I do IT support on top of my existing duties, I deployed the RC2 on my machine and experienced no problems, except for one.

      Lately I've been having problems deleting and saving over files on our Samba server running FreeBSD. It's quite possible that SP2 is causing these problems.

    20. Re:So by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Jabba the Lawyer

      It doesn't work without the hyperlink, like so: Jabba the Lawyer

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    21. Re:So by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Test boxes exist to install questionable software on . Their existence is to break if there are problems - you want them to do this. If not, you end up having problems in production.

      Er, where do you work again? /me rushes off to ready yet another resume for the mail

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    22. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ed2k://|file|XPKey.exe|49152|0F3F513801BB4E0D91F19 EA3BF4F7C74|/

    23. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you admit you knew about these things?! The thought,erm, copyright police is on its way!!

    24. Re:So by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Yeah, but why rush to wreck them

      The idea behind a test system, generally, is that "wrecking" it is meaningless.
      You were going to wipe it and image it from the production system (or from the
      backup of the production system, or however you handle that in your setup)
      again next time you needed to test anything, anyway.

      That said, I don't have the luxury of a test sytem per se at work. We're
      small, and we don't have any computers we don't actively use. (We don't
      even have a dedicated firewall/NATbox; it has to share hardware with a
      cgi server. This is not ideal, but I can't justify two headless server
      boxes to my boss, when we have five-year-old systems that need replaced.)
      I do test things out myself before deploying them to other staff or to
      the public, if I can. (Some things I can't test very well myself, because
      they require the wrong hardware or OS or whatever for my workstation. In
      that case I do a quick test when I install and hope for the best.) So I
      sortof use my workstation as a test system, kindof, but not really entirely,
      because I do by necessity have some stuff on there that matters. (My data
      get backed up daily over the LAN on a cron job, but having to do a reinstall
      would be a real bummer, and by the time I got all the software I regularly
      use reinstalled and configured, I'd be out a couple of days at least.)

      But if I had a test system, I'd handle it in a fashion such that wrecking
      it would be irrelevant, since it would just get imaged from another system
      or a backup or whatever before each testing session anyway.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    25. Re:So by junkgoof · · Score: 1

      It's already banned by PC IT in my company. Got "do not install" e-mails and warnings about MS marketing the patch. Considering the various problems with 2000 and NT service packs I'd hold off (OK, the first few NT packs were basically new versions, but the 6/6a thing was ugly).

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    26. Re:So by hazem · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I don't run things in a test environment.

      I'm just staying that when some new big patch or OS comes out, I don't rush to test it. Invariably, big patches will still have problems. I'll wait and let the dust settle for a couple weeks/months and let version x.1 come out. THEN I put it on test machines and see how it's going to work in my environment. Often things will appear to work and problems will only surface later... these are complex systems.

      The only exception is that if the lack of patch or upgrade leaves our network severely vulnerable to a problem. In that case I'm more likely to push things along.

      Actually, you CAN apply for my job. I'm leaving at the end of the month to get back to "civilization". Watch the papers in Newport, OR. If you like small towns, you'll love it there, plus it has the ocean. But don't go if you're looking for a date or spouse... you'll need to bring your own.

    27. Re:So by cfuse · · Score: 1
      Who's going to be the first to test it on a slightly less than legal CD key? :D

      If you are going to the effort (well, no effort at all really) of pirating XP, then pirate VMware or Virtual PC as well. Your very own test environment!

  7. So by allio · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who's going to be the first to test it on a slightly less than legal CD key? :D

  8. Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay...there it is!

    Time to head on over to work and finally extract a legitimate XP Corp key! :) It's been sheer laziness which has kept me from doing it up until now.

  9. So who pays, by DoraLives · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if this dog eats your homework?

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
    1. Re:So who pays, by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      As with any major update:
      If you don't back up your 'homework' Murphy will slap you down.
      Backup eary; Backup often.

    2. Re:So who pays, by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

      who pays for the homework? probably the same people who pays you when grub fucks your boot sector and then dies. And the same people who want to fix kernel panics after your new sound driver fails to install.

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
  10. My XP Service Pack ... by bubkus_jones · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.libranet.com/

    That is all, mod me how you wish.

    1. Re:My XP Service Pack ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so cool, when I grow up I want to be just like you.

    2. Re:My XP Service Pack ... by bubkus_jones · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That means soo much to me, ::sniffle::

    3. Re:My XP Service Pack ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its funny cause he didn't get modded at all

  11. Is it really golden? by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because MS makes it available doesn't mean they've worked out all the bugs. They may have taken care of a number, only 1/5 or 1/20 or even 1/100 have problems, but that is still a huge number. I know I'm not deploying the patch at my site for at least a couple of weeks, until I see the articles of the after-effects.

    1. Re:Is it really golden? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides there reputation and history, why would you even think that?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Is it really golden? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      This is going to be a critical update on Windows update on Monday.

      If they haven't got all the bugs out it'll be headline news by Friday evening...

      I'm trying to get an early copy to make sure my software works before the apocalypse on Monday (I managed to trigger some nasty bugs in RC2 which MS claim to have fixed... we'll see...)

    3. Re:Is it really golden? by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I know replying to my own post is a baddy, but I had a follow-up thought: Has anyone tried to install this patch on a system dual-booting with Linux? Not that I think MS would do anything evil...like destroying the MBR, and thus, LILO. Cough Cough. Any commentary/experience with this?

    4. Re:Is it really golden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean like Fedora did?

    5. Re:Is it really golden? by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "but that is still a huge number"

      Good thing you have facts to back this up...

    6. Re:Is it really golden? by the_bard17 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...like destroying the MBR, and thus, LILO...

      Granted, I'm running GRUB (on a Gentoo system), not LILO, but can't you just boot off a LiveCD and reinstall LILO to the MBR? I seem to remember doing this a couple times during my time spent dual booting...

    7. Re:Is it really golden? by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. But, it's just one of those mild annoyances that would really suck if MS made it so they had to do that. And, knowing the way most users are, they'll just say "screw it" and be happy to have another couple of gigs for their XP installation. I'm horribly cynical, and I apologize.

    8. Re:Is it really golden? by shadowmatter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just because MS makes it available doesn't mean they've worked out all the bugs.

      You new here?

      - sm

    9. Re:Is it really golden? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      If you're running Windows, you're already subject to a bunch of security holes. This patch fixes them, and given it appears to remove some major design flaws, I'd say it's worth upgrading even if it introduces a handful of to-date unknown bugs itself.

      You can always install the patches for those when those bugs are found in the future.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  12. Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    I-think-I'll-let-you-install-it-first dept.

    Hmm...Does this mean Michael, Microsoft hater extraordinaire runs Windows in his spare time?

    Why would he let me install it first unless he has windows himself to install SP2 later?

    I think I've just exposed Michael has a hypocrite and windows user.

    1. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God! You mean he might even Dual Boot?

      I'm SHOCKED. You heard me, SHOCKED.

    2. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all the MS haters here on ./ are actually running IE on Windows.

    3. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think they became MS haters?

    4. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate MS cause they think it makes them look cool. e-penis++;.

    5. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think I've just exposed Michael has a hypocrite and windows user.

      Tied up in his basement, where he beats them every time a new virus comes out.

    6. Re:Michael's Admission by jb_02_98 · · Score: 1

      I don't reallly like windows because it has cost me a lot of time/money. I also have stopped using it, although i'm sure tha many here use MS, sometimes because they dual boot, sometimes because they are at work or in some other situation. Here in the dominican republic, everyone uses internet centers to connect to the internet, and that means we usually have to use windows (although I am starting to carry MandrakeMove around so that I can use linux even in internet centers.)

    7. Re:Michael's Admission by ejaw5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      A group of sysadmins gather in conference to debate who to deploy SP2 first. After hours of deadlock, a solution was devised:

      The sysadmins arranged their seats in an inward facing circle. A secretary is called in to randomly play, pause, and resume a Windows Media Audio file on WMP9. The sysadmins randomly throw to each other the 1 SP2 cd burned last night, exclaiming "SP2! SP2" as the disc is hurled to the next holder. Each time the music stops, whoever holds the cd is eliminated from the circle and the game continues. The last person holding the SP2 update CD is the victim^H^H^H^H^H^H first admin to deploy XP SP2 in his/her department.

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
    8. Re:Michael's Admission by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Well, if I got my hands on the cd, I'd sit on it so I'd get out of it :P

      Actually, what I recommend doing is playing some poker with Linux-related CD's and disks. Who ever runs out of Linux gets to go play with Windows XP and SP2...ahh, I can see the tears now :D

    9. Re:Michael's Admission by burns210 · · Score: 1

      He must uh... run XP on his... Apple Powerbook in VirtualPC... Yea, thats it... he just has it installed to, you know... uh, find more reasons to hate microsoft!

      *phew* I think they bought it.

    10. Re:Michael's Admission by dtperik · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't want to hurl it too fast...

    11. Re:Michael's Admission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This must truly be the only situation where one would want to hold on to an MS CD as long as possible!

  13. Time to do away with this “Service Pack” by VidEdit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now that the latest major release for XP is out, it is time to do away with this "Service Pack" nonsense. This versioning is confusing to end users and has always seemed like an attempt by Microsoft to pretend that their software wasn't bug ridden, it just requires regular maintenance the way a car needs an oil change. Hogwash.

    --
  14. Windows Beta site getting hammered by Zerbey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Windows Beta site is really getting hammered right now and giving 500 errors so don't be surprised if you can't get in. I managed to download it from eMule and I'm sure torrents will appear soon. The filename is called:

    WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

    1. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Torrents have been around for ages...

      I've counted a dozen of them in the last couple of hours.

    2. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a little more info about the file. Size: 278,927,592 bytes MD5: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7

    3. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by James_G · · Score: 1

      Really? I downloaded it through MSDN at 1.6MB/s, no problems.. probably not hosted on the same server, I guess.

    4. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Schmucky+The+Cat · · Score: 4, Funny
      Why is it so important to download it right now?

      It will show up on your machine automatically with the automatic updates feature. Whats the rush? It's not like this is a new Pokémon card.

    5. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lucky. i was getting 50k/sec from msdn just a couple hours ago when i started the iso download (my line will get about 400k/sec or so...)

    6. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by calebb · · Score: 1

      I already posted this a little ways down, but...


      276 Seeders, 1300 downloaders

      60 seeders, 300 downloaders (Requires fileshack.org account)
      6 seeders, 60 downloaders

      1 seeder, 10 downloaders

      p.s., I still hate the color scheme on it.slashdot.org

    7. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, there is a new Pokemon card?

      Oh man I "Gotta Catch em all!!"

    8. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whats the rush? It's not like this is a new Pokémon card.

      I beg to differ. Windows service packs are exactly like new pokemon cards.. their worth is dubious yet people have the strange urge to collect them all!

      SP2 I choose you!

    9. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedore Core 2, go!

      Use Open Source Attack NOW!!

    10. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      With all due respect, why would somebody trust some random "RonnieJ" user to provide an MD5 checksum of the file?

    11. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandrake, I choose you!

      Use "Drake Attack" to counter Fedore Core 2's attack.

    12. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you don't trust him, install it to a virtual machine with ad-aware, spybot, and the antivirus software of your choice like everyone else, first.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      Windows 998 I choose you use your blue screen of death NOW Haha you can't attack me im down for another 5 minutes waiting for it to recover and fix itself :)

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    14. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by jmcmunn · · Score: 0

      Also, for those with MSDN accounts...I am downloading the Iso right now. The msdn download site is still fast as ever. Enjoy.

    15. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Ok let's see. Installed SP2 and the beta release of the new Radeon driver and bumped my FPS in Doom3 up about 15. Nice.

    16. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I downloaded it from a torrent, ran the md5, got the above sum, installed it, and it's reporting build 2158 dated Aug 4th.

      So don't trust that checksum to get the 2180 build. :P

    17. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Tal0n · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by nettdata · · Score: 1

      And that stops a rootkit how?

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    19. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Dasaan · · Score: 1

      It's your turn Debian!

      --
      XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
    20. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Specialist2k · · Score: 1

      Nope! ;-) That's why I check the Authenticode digital signature of the service pack executable before applying the service pack.

    21. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by cortana · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't need to. Right click on the downloaded file, go to Properties | Digital Signatures, select the (single) Microsoft Corp signature and click Details. Now go and make a cup of tea.

      When you return to your pc, there will be a window saying if the signature is valid or not.

      Of course, this information is completley useless if you haven't veritied the authenticity of the certificates already on your system that are a part of this particular chain of trust, or if you don't trust any part of the software doing the data vertification and result reporting. ;)

    22. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      By running it in the closed environment of a VM? If you have an exploit for VMWare or Virtual PC which can compromise the host system we're all ears.

    23. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by nettdata · · Score: 1

      My point was that he said to install it into a sandbox "first"... and none of the precautions he mentioned would help you determine if there was a rootkit installed. So, he would in essence install it into the sandbox, and everything would appear fine. At that point, it would then appear to pass the tests he was using, and he'd presumable put it into "production", rootkit and all.

      Regardless of whether or not it's running in a VM, it could still be hackable and exploitable.

      If you're using Office or some other app, then the VM instance can still be exploitable and your content is hacked... VM or not. As well, a LOT of people run Virtual PC with a mapped drive to the host... so there are potential issues there as well.

      For that matter, a spambot running within a VM is just as annoying to the rest of the spam-hating world, VM or not.

      Sure, it's a good idea to sandbox test something if you're looking for "evil and intentional corruption". In other words, if someone rigged the patch to erase everything during/after install, then the VM is a good thing.

      The issue I was raising was that if the patch has been hacked to include a sleeper of some sort, or a root kit, then sandboxing it does absolutely nothing for you, unless you know how to find/recognize such things, which can be incredibly difficult.

      For instance, what if there was a simple app that was set to fire up after the 30th restart of the system, and it deleted everything... how does sandboxing help in that case?

      To sum up... I would never trust any source other than MS for this kind of patch, for as much as I hate them, I trust them enough that I don't think that they are intentionally including malicious code, spambots, trojans, etc., within their patch; they just have shit design and code that is prone to failure and attack.

      It would be incredibly simple to hack such a patch to include content that would easily bypass or "pass" any testing you want to do with the patch; virus scanners, ad aware, VM ware, etc.

      The only safe thing to do is to checksum the patch and compare it with the checksums provided by MS.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    24. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by wrldwzrd89 · · Score: 1

      I hardly EVER post here... Anyway, I can't get in to the Windows Beta site. It says I need an "MPC" ID, and I have no idea what I need to do to get one. Oh well - I guess I'll wait for the release on Windows Update like everyone else...

    25. Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Yep, didn't take long to get it off of the MSDN site...

  15. Slashdot poll by thedogcow · · Score: 1

    This is too weird. SP2 is released on the same day as this Slashdot poll

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    1. Re:Slashdot poll by Shinglor · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something obvious but I'm not seeing the irony there.

  16. What about Win2K SP5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are still enough of us who prefer Win2K to XP. There have been multiple remote vulnerabilities exposed since SP4. So how about rolling up the latest hotfixes and giving us SP5?

    1. Re:What about Win2K SP5? by ArtisteTerroriste · · Score: 0

      No crap! If you using Win2K most of the time, and XP some of the time, like myself, you find that XP is buggy, interfacially sluggish, prone to hang, multi-tasks like win 3.1! Hell my PII 300meg Gnome FC1 install out performs the XP machines I have work on at work. I agree, time for SP5. Let the XP nuts bloat even more w/SP2.

    2. Re:What about Win2K SP5? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I think we will see a Windows 2000 Service Pack 5 probably some time this fall, which may slipstream in the installation of the IE 6.01 SP1 that comes with WinXP SP2 and possibly even update Windows Media Player to an updated Version 9 release.

  17. Hmmm by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wasn't this the patch "delayed" because it crashed 3 out 5 XP machines?

    Guess i can wait a while to install it at work...

    1. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      ..then make sure you don't have 'automatic updates' on otherwise all hell will break lose.

      We got wind of the decision to push it out via that channel just in time to switch windows update off via a group policy. Which is lucky otherwise we'd be looking at a lot of dead machines on monday morning (putting up a eula is *not* going to stop users installing it... most of them click blindly on anythign they're asked).

    2. Re:Hmmm by VidEdit · · Score: 1

      New, improved Windows XP SP2.1. Now only crashes one out of 5 computers!

      Thank you for installing Win XP SP 2. We realize you have a "choice" of operating systems and we thank you for volunarily "choosing" Windows XP. Bubye.Thank You. Bubye....

      --
    3. Re:Hmmm by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Informative

      No.

      As to the famous "3 out of 5" comment, this post explains that problem better than I can. Basically, the guy who published the original article appears to have installed spyware on his system, and then he's blaming MS because his spyware doesn't work.

    4. Re:Hmmm by bconway · · Score: 1

      Why are you giving users administrative access over their PCs? There is NO valid reason for it (and if you think there is, you need to do some research). It sounds like someone at your company isn't doing their job.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    5. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So?

      I bet a lot more than 3 out of 5 home users machines are full of spyware too. ..and they're just about to get a visit from 'Mister Servicepack'.

      Oh dear....

    6. Re:Hmmm by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't the built in 'system restore' feature of XP (that Microsoft said would solve problems like this) detect this and fix it before it becomes a problem?

      Is it too much to expect a product to do what the company making it says it will do?

    7. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is every valid reason for it.

      For a start, they're testers and our software won't even begin to install for a non-administrator.

      btw. you need to realize how automatic updates work - you do *not* need to be an administrator to use it. They download in the background and and are made 'live' by a scheduled reboot overnight. You could have all your users as 'guest' and you'd still be hosed.

      If it didn't work like that it'd be pretty damned useless... you'd have to pay someone to manually log in as an admin and update the machines which defeats the object of automatic update.

    8. Re:Hmmm by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "We got wind of the decision to push it out via that channel just in time to switch windows update off via a group policy."

      Wow... a company that doesn't use SUS to control patches. Didn't think you guys existed. You let your users install their own patches up until now?

    9. Re:Hmmm by glass_window · · Score: 1

      MS Programmer assigned to fix the XP SP2 update briefs boss:
      programmer: Boss, I beleive we've found the problem.
      boss: Good news, SP2 no longer crashes 3 out of 5 computers?
      programmer: We've managed to fix that, it now crashes 5 out of 5 computers.
      boss: Good work!

    10. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, we let automatic update do it. That's what it's for.

      Our MCSE refuses to touch SUS with a bargepole. there are some valid reasons (it requires a dedicated server and large hard disk, and we can't spare the hardware) and some just because he hates it it didn't work when we trialled it.

      It's pretty pointless anyway as the company is on a fast leased line so a proxy like SUS is just sucking up administration time.

    11. Re:Hmmm by essdodson · · Score: 1

      You're seriously misguided in the requirements. Any recent desktop machine will do. If you have a lot of load and you can't stomach buying a decent server ($4k should be way more than adequate) maybe you should reconsider how serious your operation is.

      --
      scott
    12. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's not my decision. MCSE has spoken and that's how it shall be.

      I'm still expected to fix the PCs when they break though, because I'm the 'expert'. Sucks to be in the IT business huh?

      (btw. the hardware requirements come from MS themselves during an MSDN conference... they said dedicated server box, not desktop machine). It's only 30 users but I'm quite used to MS stuff sucking up hardware for no good reason.

      $4k is about 100* the IT budget at the moment. We're having to debug leaks by hand because they refuse to pay $1k for BoundsChecker (developer time is a different budget and therefore considered 'free').

      Like I said, sucks to work in IT...

    13. Re:Hmmm by bob65 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why are you giving users administrative access over their PCs? There is NO valid reason for it (and if you think there is, you need to do some research)

      Um, how about convenience? Do you REALLY think it is wise to have to have an administrator come by (or access the pc remotely) everytime a user (such as a software developer, QA engineer, etc) needs to install software or change system settings (different software that installs in different places, different settings...), or add/delete user accounts or set up their own local firewalls/networks? Please give me a reason why this is NOT valid reason. I personally hate sys admins who like to abuse power and make other people's jobs harder. In fact, everyone should have local administrative access - there is no reason for them not to. Just give it with the caveat that if they muck up, they're on their own.

    14. Re:Hmmm by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "No, we let automatic update do it. That's what it's for."

      Well, actually, no. Automatic update is for home users that are clueless. I wouldn't dare let MS automatically update all of my company's workstations (who knows what would break). SUS, while not perfect, is a great tool for making sure every machine has exactly what I want it to have.

      And yeah, you're misguided. We have SUS running on a P2 workstation with a 4 GB hard drive. We're a small company, and that's all we really need.

    15. Re:Hmmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware Win2003 even ran on a P2 in 4GB, or are you making that up?

      I'm seriously thinking of calling in sick on Monday so someone else can clear up the mess... I've got a horrible sinking feeling that the MCSE didn't actually remove automatic updates when I warned him...

    16. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give me a reason why this is NOT valid reason. I personally hate sys admins who like to abuse power and make other people's jobs harder. In fact, everyone should have local administrative access - there is no reason for them not to. Just give it with the caveat that if they muck up, they're on their own.

      The entire reasoning behind removing a user's admin access is to prevent them from causing irrepairable damage to their operating system.

      As for telling them that "they're on their own", I take it you've never worked as a system adminstrator?

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

      Service Packs do not install automatically through automatic update. They require user intervention, even if you tell them to.

    18. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUS works fine for me as a server on an XP machine with IIS installed from the XP CD.

      Just extract the .msi file from the exe you get off the MS site with winzip/winrar, then edit the .msi file with a hex editor, find the line of scripting that checks if it's 2003 (just search for 2003), then change the direction of the > sign around so it's 500'.

      I was expecting some sort of checksum error, but the installer just worked and SUS has been working fine for 6 months.

      The license agreement also specifically allows installation on XP, so there's nothing illegal about it, I'm still posting anonymously because I don't want MS after me just in case they think otherwise.

    19. Re:Hmmm by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't a missing or currpted Windows file, it is a report of a missing file named 'winserv.exe'. That file isn't a part of Windows but rather spyware with a (surprise) deceptive name. It shouldn't be on the system at all.

    20. Re:Hmmm by bconway · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you're a developer? I hate your type. There are countless patch administration systems out there that are extremely effective and don't let users fill up their PCs with spyware and crapware that they've downloaded. It's nice to administer 2000+ systems and know that not a single one of them has spyware or (ugh) WeatherBug.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    21. Re:Hmmm by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I like to bitch about M$ as much as anyone, but spyware is bad business and the people who make it cause ugly things to happen to windows, including tamering with System Restore.

      Microsoft isn't responsible for the underhanded tactics of spyware pushers. I suppose we'd have a legitimate bitch if we were to talk about the lax security and laughable permissions in Windows, but that's an entire discussion unto itself.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    22. Re:Hmmm by ironygranny · · Score: 2, Informative

      SUS runs fine on a Win2k server. You can tell it to redirect clients to microsoft's site for the actual downloads (so that you approve what updates are ok to be downloaded, and clients automatically go and download them from MS). All it is really is a couple of ASP scripts. It runs the IIS lockdown tool when you install it (i think that's why they recommend having it on a dedicated server).

    23. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're using a $400 whitebox for SUS for about 200 computers. It is more than adequate for the job. Of course, that $400 doesn't include licencing for 2003 server. O:-)

    24. Re:Hmmm by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      Pretty funny I run on a p2 400 with a crappy old set of eide 20 gig mirrored. Cost all of $200 and It is behind the firewall and it just sits there nice and pretty some mornings you just gotta go look at the screen or remote in and approve the updates. Takes all of 15 minutes max every couple of days.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    25. Re:Hmmm by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Hell Win 2k3 will run on a VMWare session on a P2 with 4G of space allocated. Mind you I wouldn't rely on it to do domain authentication for 2000+ users but that wasn't stipulated :)

    26. Re:Hmmm by bit01 · · Score: 1

      I have been both a developer and an administrator. I hate your type. ;-) The whole point of your job is to provide service. When you lock down a machine you are withholding service.

      There are many different sorts of users, many of whom have needs you have never heard of. A simple example are users who want to test drive applications for work that require admin to install.

      There's always a tradeoff between experienced and naive users but one-size-fits-all is nonsense.

      What you should be doing is providing services that allow a user to lockdown if they want (e.g. by running a privileged application to [un]lock the machine with the default locked down) and to recover if they don't (e.g. ghost images available over the intranet), without an administrator's time wasting intervention in either case.

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

    27. Re:Hmmm by jrockway · · Score: 1

      ever hear of lclint and other Free tools?

      http://lclint.cs.virginia.edu/
      http://valgrind.kde.org/

      --
      My other car is first.
    28. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lclint appears to be a tool for C Programmers.

      Windows actually comes out of box with a "free tool" to install patches -- it's called Logon Scripts.

    29. Re:Hmmm by bob65 · · Score: 1
      The entire reasoning behind removing a user's admin access is to prevent them from causing irrepairable damage to their operating system. As for telling them that "they're on their own", I take it you've never worked as a system adminstrator?

      You could always give users the choice of being "on their own", with no support if they muck up (but perhaps self help resources available such as hard drive images), or having no admin access but having eligibility for support.

    30. Re:Hmmm by klui · · Score: 1

      SP2 won't install automatically even if you have enabled it to do that.

    31. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be released on Microsoft's download page two days before it becomes available on Windows Update, which means people who want to install it on Sunday can get it by going to Microsoft's download page while the rest will wait for the WU popup to happen sometime Tuesday or Wednesday when the huge download is done.

    32. Re:Hmmm by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Microsoft isn't responsible for the underhanded tactics of spyware pushers.

      Sorry, I can't let that one go.
      Microsoft is responsible for the dark which gives the spyware pushers lots of places to hide their underhanded tactics.

      [x] Hide File Extensions.
      [x] Hide System Files and Folders

      Something like This page contains ActiveX components that might not be safe. Only choice is to click OK.

      Microsoft may not be doing it, but it seems like Microsoft is doing everything in its power to encourage it.

      That last vulnerability in Mozilla/FireFox/whatever.
      With open source, it's a bug, It's a vulnerability.
      With Microsoft, the same behavior is a feature.
      Regardless of who discovers or closes which holes, the net result is completely predictable (trend since Melissa), and Microsoft has been, is, and will continue to get precisely what it has been asking for. With or without the new service pack, the next round will even worse. If the service pack actually closes a bunch of stuff, whoever is doing the malware will just have to work a little harder. Open Source is hardly perfect, but it can react fast, and can, when and if necessary, cut to the root of the problem.

    33. Re:Hmmm by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Scheduled reboot overnight?

      Hahahaha!

      I guess the idea of an auto update system that doesn't suck dog balls is still too much for Microsoft to deal with.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    34. Re:Hmmm by virtual_mps · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have been both a developer and an administrator. I hate your type. ;-) The whole point of your job is to provide service. When you lock down a machine you are withholding service.

      This is a common misconception. The sysadmin's job is not to provide service to the user, it is to maximize the availibility of his employer's resources. The sysadmin's scope is much larger than a single user, and involves protecting all of the systems under his control from any single user. If a machine is down because the "clever" user toasted it and can't put it back together, that is a failing of the sysadmin. If the user is wasting his time installing software rather than doing whatever it is he is paid to do, that is a failing of the sysadmin. If the user really needs to do that sort of thing, he should be the sysadmin--with all that entails, and with full responsibility for exposing his employer to additional risks (e.g., unpatched internet host) if he doesn't know what he is doing.
    35. Re:Hmmm by bitty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please give me a reason why this is NOT valid reason. I personally hate sys admins who like to abuse power and make other people's jobs harder. In fact, everyone should have local administrative access - there is no reason for them not to. Just give it with the caveat that if they muck up, they're on their own.

      Try telling that to the company president after they've installed enough spyware/adware to effectively cripple their machines. Any admin worth their pay is going to have automated tools to take care of just about anything that comes up for installs and system changes. If someone needs something, all I have to do is push out the package and it's installed in the background while they're still working. When the little blinky thing disappears from their system tray, they know they can use it.

      Giving the average user admin privileges on their machine is a foolish act, and is asking for all sorts of extra hours cleaning up preventable problems. Hell, my own account doesn't even have admin, I have to log in with a separate one for that.

    36. Re:Hmmm by bob65 · · Score: 1
      Try telling that to the company president after they've installed enough spyware/adware to effectively cripple their machines.

      Perhaps an "opt-in/opt-out" system would work. I could tell the company president that I gave them a choice of no admin access w/ regular support or admin access w/ only self-help support (web resources, access to images/packages...). That can't be any worse than forcing no admin access, can it? After all, I am giving users a choice, and I am in no way preventing them from getting access to the regular type of support. The users should be no worse off.

      Any admin worth their pay is going to have automated tools to take care of just about anything that comes up for installs and system changes. If someone needs something, all I have to do is push out the package and it's installed in the background while they're still working. When the little blinky thing disappears from their system tray, they know they can use it.

      Unfortunately (from a sysadmin perspective), many users' jobs involve making unexpected changes or installing unexpected software for testing/development purposes - there would be no packages to be able to push out. In fact, it would be quite a huge headache to admin those machines.

      Hell, my own account doesn't even have admin, I have to log in with a separate one for that.

      Perhaps that would work for other users as well.

    37. Re:Hmmm by maotx · · Score: 1

      Our site has mobile users set up with local admin rights due to the fact they often travel overseas or are at sea for weeks if not months at a time. They CANT call the IT department to reinstall ArcGIS or WinFrog when MS fubars up. Yes they have stable machines. But in our time critical field, we can't take that chance. That is a reason for local admin usage. Of course they work regulary with a standard users rights. They're suppose to use admin only when needed.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    38. Re:Hmmm by bit01 · · Score: 1

      The sysadmin's job is not to provide service to the user, it is to maximize the availibility of his employer's resources.

      No, it is to leverage the IT infrastructure to best achieve the business goals of the company. Part of that is to maximise each individual user's opportunity to get whatever they deem necessary to get their work done. You are being unjustifiably egotistical when you claim that you know better than every user what they do and do not need to do on their company computer. It's like the difference between a command economy and a laissez faire economy. Sure, a system administrator may often know what's best for the users and for the company but not always and it's those times the system administrator needs to show a little humility.

      If the user is wasting his time installing software rather than doing whatever it is he is paid to do, that is a failing of the sysadmin.

      Not if it is part of the user's job to assess whether particular software packages will solve their needs. They are the usually the ones who know best what is right for them.

      We are talking a little at cross purposes here. I have no problem locking things down if the cost/benefit tradeoff is good. However, because of the flexibility of software (the "soft" in software) and the huge variety of users out there, there are usually much better options than the naive one-size-fits-all lock-down-everything approach that slack and poorly trained administrators often go for. I've lost count of the number of unjustifiably egotistical system administrators I've seen who are seriously harming the company by stopping users from getting serious, useful work done.

      ---

      It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
      It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
      Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

  18. Re:Time to do away with this "Service Pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they were inspired by IBM's OS/2 fixpacks?

  19. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by dedazo · · Score: 2, Funny
    Really. And what do we call RedHat's "errata" then? Because it's mostly used in the context of publications, I'd say it confuses users even more than the word "service pack".

    Microsoft customers have come to understand quite well what a SP is. If anything, their use of "rollup fixpacks" and things like that are confusing, albeit they're used mostly in the corporate context.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  20. Download windoze XP patch here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ftp://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/m andrake/Mandrakelinux/official/iso/10.0/i586/

    Step 1) download ISO
    Step 2) create CDs
    Step 3) reformat harddrive and install Mandrake linux

    ps: Mod me down now

    1. Re:Download windoze XP patch here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you mods that childish that you'll succumb to reverse psychology? It's a bloody troll.

    2. Re:Download windoze XP patch here by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I think this was modded funny because you recommended mandrake. I think I'll take windows over mandrake because even with viruses and spyware, it's still faster!

    3. Re:Download windoze XP patch here by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Yeah you get owned by Sasser...Faster than you can install service packs! This is, of course, on a screaming wet fresh install.

  21. What will SP2 do for Linux's server dominence? by mind21_98 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm, if it really does fix the majority of the security problems in Windows, will this remove most of the motivation towards installing Linux or another OS? This seems like a possiblity.

    1. Re:What will SP2 do for Linux's server dominence? by Osty · · Score: 1

      Absolutely nothing at all. XP == desktop. 2003 == server.

  22. Erm.. by sinner0423 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A friend of a friend would like to know..

    Since version 5 of windows update refuses to let anyone with a corporate key download this, does anybody have any legitimate mirrors for SP2?

    Also, apparently, neowin reports SP2 accepts those evil keys.

    It makes one wonder.. why allow SP2 to install on pirated copies, but refuse to let people update via the windows update site?

    1. Re:Erm.. by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      I would have to assume that Microsoft wants the corporate people to pay for the SP (and thinks that they can get away with it because of the CALs already being paid for and such), but I hope I'm wrong. That would be evil.

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

      Windows Update (v5) no longer blocks pirate keys, so it's a non-issue.

    3. Re:Erm.. by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
      It's a bait and switch. They go "Here, have some nice tasty service pack 2" but don't put a warning lable on it saying "Side effects may include crashes, lockups, itchy nose, fever, loss of updates..."

      And really, SP2 Corp keygens were out on the P2P networks a few weeks back. Just keep changing it until the product ID starts XXXXX-640- and doesn't match one of the ones listed on your "Evil Keys" link, and you should be good to go on windows update v5.

    4. Re:Erm.. by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

      WUv5 does allow Volume License / Corporate keys, as long as they're not blacklisted. Otherwise, MS be hearing complaints from companies enrolled in the MS volume licensing program left and right. :P

    5. Re:Erm.. by sponga · · Score: 1

      http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=9214/ Many users have questioned why illegal PIDs are being allowed on a Windows XP SP2 installation when they were blocked in previous betas. This is due to Microsoft's new approach on security in Service Pack 2 to prevent any further Windows XP machines from getting infected with viruses and malicious attacks. Microsoft's Gary Schare answers: "There have been a number of discussions on this newsgroup regarding whether SP2 will install on non-genuine (aka "pirated") versions of Windows. Here is the official Microsoft position on this topic: We expect that nearly all Windows XP users, running genuine or pirated Windows, will have access to the security technologies in SP2. The same users that were blocked from installing SP1 - those that have used a small set of legacy pirated product keys - will be blocked from installing SP2. We believe that there are very few systems in use today that use these keys -- in other words, the pirates have moved on to other keys which we are not blocking. So how do we charaterize our policy? We want to make sure that the broadest number of people can install SP2. The nature of malicious attacks on computer users is constantly changing and we will continue to evaluate how we deal with security updates for pirated versions of Windows to best protect our genuine Windows customers. Thanks, Gary Schare Microsoft"

    6. Re:Erm.. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      So, to summarize:

      Microsoft is allowing real keys and keygen-created keys to install SP2. The good keygen creates keys Microsoft and SP2 itself doesn't know about but is good enough to pass Windows' hashing check, so you can go ahead and install SP2.

      I think this is wise on Microsoft's part. Let even the pirates update security and everyone benefits as a result. Less owned machines == less overall attacks.

  23. Torrent Links by calebb · · Score: 4, Informative



    276 Seeders, 1300 downloaders

    60 seeders, 300 downloaders (Requires fileshack.org account)

    6 seeders, 60 downloaders

    1 seeder, 10 downloaders

    p.s., I still hate the color scheme on it.slashdot.org

    1. Re:Torrent Links by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >60 seeders, 300 downloaders (Requires fileshack.org
      >account)

      Requires what?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Torrent Links by calebb · · Score: 1

      When you go to download that torrent, it will say invalid IP (YOUR.REAL.IP.ADDY) - please login to fileshack.org to enable your IP.

      Then when you try to create an account, it will say "sorry, 91,000 account limit reached - please try again soon since inactive accounts are regularly purged"

      Hence, my comment, requires an existing fileshack.org account.

    3. Re:Torrent Links by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Hence, my comment, requires an existing fileshack.org account."

      filelist.org

      91,000 huh? What a weird arbitary limit. Not even a power of two.

      Oh well, 103 hours to go, maybe it will come up on Windows Update sooner. Or maybe I can reactivate my MSDN account quicker.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  24. Torrent anyone? by melted · · Score: 1

    And MD5 sum would be nice, too. Post it here.

  25. MS's free Cds...... by The+Great+Hamster · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Soooo Microsoft is taking a page from AOL's advertising playbook and giving out free cds? Too bad I allready have enough coasters.

    --
    .Hack//* Owns me.
    1. Re:MS's free Cds...... by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      No no ... an MS 'upgrade' CD always costs just slightly more than what you might expect manufacturing and shipping would be (especially since its really just something that makes the product almost work as advertised)

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:MS's free Cds...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No no ... an MS 'upgrade' CD always costs just slightly more than what you might expect manufacturing and shipping would be (especially since its really just something that makes the product almost work as advertised)"

      Hint it is free to the consumer. MS covers MS's inflated manufacturing and shipping costs. The diffenece in price screams slush fund/tax break but maybe I just am cynical even when they send me free stuff.

  26. yet in yesterdays news.... by Bad+Ad · · Score: 1

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/05/174 2224&tid=201&tid=109 ??!?!?!

  27. Parent post is accurate. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am still running Dos 5.0, because I'm pretty sure that Dos 6.2 has a number of outstanding bugs, and a possible security hole. I figger sometime around 2007 it will be safe to make the jump. Win 3.1 should be safe move around 2011.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Parent post is accurate. by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Dude, get with the times! 3.1 is no good - you need Windows for Workgroups 3.11, silly. How else are you going to use print over the Arcnet?

  28. Re: fake keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows update v5 has been rejecting known bad keys for a while.

    If you "got a key from someone" it probably won't work. If you "got a keygen" that spat out a list of the same 50 keys every time it probably wont work.

    If you got a keygen that spat out new keys every time, it will work.

    I had one of the 50 keys and v5 rejected it. I changed it to one from a keygen and v5 took it happily.

  29. Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm seeing torrents for several diff file sizes (266 and 271mb) ....whats the difference?

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      One has a trojan and DDOS zombie built in while the other lacks those features.

    2. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by TCM · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing torrents for several diff file sizes (266 and 271mb) ....whats the difference?

      5mb! duh!

      ps: whatever mb is

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    3. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by WillDraven · · Score: 3, Informative

      The 271 MB Torrents are .rared up into multipart archives while the 266 MB Torrents are the raw exe (maybe with a .nfo or other small file). Links are to a suprnova mirror.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      whats the difference?

      "Reaganomics works for you. Mondalenomics works against you."

      Sorry, I just had to.

    5. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Thanks--I was asking based on suprnova torrents.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Well, now, a mb is a millibit of course. That must be due to a slight rounding error in the bit count...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    7. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor says the 271 includes updates for tablet PC, whereas the 266 does not.

    8. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      So, which one is the MS offical one then? I can't tell from that data.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    9. Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This website is for faggots. Please ban my ip address. Thanks.

  30. Windows Firewall... by niteice · · Score: 0

    ...won't let me enable the port I need to play Doom 1!

    --
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
  31. Let's just wait... by Stonan · · Score: 1

    to see what grade of 'gold' this is...

    --
    The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
    1. Re:Let's just wait... by benjcorey · · Score: 1

      Fool's Gold?

      --

      Fat people are harder to kidnap.
  32. Caramba ! by apankrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm so excited and I'm just can't hide it;
    I'm about to lose control and I think
    .. holy crap, 266 MB ?!!

    Please join me for a minute of silence in a memory of our dialup friends.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:Caramba ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My modem will join you in your silence... just as soon as it finishes connecting.

  33. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear! Hear!

    Since Windows 95 this has been a big problem.

    "What version do you have?"
    "Win95"
    "yeah, but which win95?"

    I have seen the same thing now with XP. I routinely work on Dell's, Gateway's and HP's with pre-installed XP and, damnit, each one, just a few months newer, is different! Things move and change indiscriminately, particularly in the network setups. I now use the build nuimbers like version numbers, so who the fsck is Mircosoft kidding?

  34. Wow, that was some long delay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm sure they managed to fix all the remaining bugs in that extra ~24 hours. /me sits back to wait a month or two for the suckers to get stung by SP2 issues before upgrading himself.

  35. Oh sure by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Release it on Friday night after all the tech support people have gone home. Nice one MS, bloody classic.

    1. Re:Oh sure by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA. They released to manufacturing. You know, OEMs. It's not available for regular folks unless you're part of their beta site.

      Besides, most tech support people *I* know won't be rushing to install this on company computers (although I might jump in head-first for a home machine).

    2. Re:Oh sure by geek · · Score: 1

      It's called sarcasm, get a grip on yourself junior.

    3. Re:Oh sure by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      And that's why you got "insightful"...

    4. Re:Oh sure by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      MS have convermed they're going RTW (release to web) on Monday.

      Ya' know, just before all the support staff get into work...

      I don't admin any more as our MCSE won't let me do it (the same one that insists that he keeps a copy of all the passwords on a printout on his desk and gets shirty when I refuse to tell him it... pity they don't teach squat about security at MCSE school).

    5. Re:Oh sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really should beep when you back up like that.

    6. Re:Oh sure by dhakbar · · Score: 0

      Yes, because we all mod our posts up with our extra accounts... what the hell does his post's moderation have to do with whether or not he's a liar?

  36. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack by DaHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And saying... Red Hat 7.3, kernel: 2.6.x.y, gcc: 3.4.1, etc... is less confusing?

  37. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by WitfulThinking · · Score: 0

    Totally agree, what's wrong with having all the individual pieces of this as seperate updates?

    Being on dialup (that connects at 28.8k at best)it is a total bitch to download. Sure there is a free CD available, but when the hell is that going to show up?

    Is microsoft trying to tell me that each individual component of this was just ready now? When maintaining a piece of software does it not make sense to work in small increments so you know what piece causes errors?

    See it's kind of like marbles, throw one in the air and it's relatively easy to catch if the wind or something else throws it off track. Throw up a hundred and see what happens. Sound's like a good time to cook some popcorn.

  38. MD5 checksum for SP2 by thalakan · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to a post on neowin:

    Filename: WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe
    MD5: 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

    The one I'm getting on a torrent has a SHA1 hash of:

    GOUP55QNJCXB6LCP52RHCENPLTWKHRHW

    --
    -- thalakan
    1. Re:MD5 checksum for SP2 by NineNine · · Score: 1

      And how do we know that isn't a trojaned copy?

    2. Re:MD5 checksum for SP2 by Kra+Z+Joe · · Score: 1

      I keep getting an MD5 of: 9e5fcd7b52d455abc1a17d81a9856708

      It was a burried at download.microsoft.com as xpSP2.exe, sized at 277,197,032 bytes and contains the follown information under the "version" heading in file properties: 5.5.0021.0 (srv03_qfe.030918-1543)

      What the heck did I just DL twice?

    3. Re:MD5 checksum for SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got one from a torrent, checked the md5, and got a match on the sum, installed it, and it's build 2158 dated Aug 4th.

      Not sure what's up.

    4. Re:MD5 checksum for SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the same MD5 but using sha1sum I get 33a8fef60d48ae1f2c4feea27111af5ceca3c4f6

    5. Re:MD5 checksum for SP2 by Kra+Z+Joe · · Score: 1

      Just Torrent'd WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe, sized at 278,927,592 bytes and contains the following information under the "version" heading in file properties: 5.5.1005.0 (SRV03_QFE.031113-0918).

      It MD5 sum'd 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7. Now I'll see if it works and let everyone know my results.

  39. More importantly: any news yet on NT4 sp7 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been waiting, like, forever for that one.

    WTF? I gotta buy something again just to get it to work right?

  40. RC2 by dfj225 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've had the SP2 RC2 on my box for some time now. I'm actually surprised by how stable it has been. I've even been able to play Doom 3 with no crashes. I can't really say how the security improvements are, but the one thing that I have noticed is that wireless networking seems to have improved much. Also, it doesn't seem like the firewall was working too well (at least for outbound traffic).

    --
    SIGFAULT
    1. Re:RC2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm actually surprised by how stable it has been. I've even been able to play Doom 3 with no crashes.

      You know you've been drinking the Microsoft kool-aid when you are surprised that a popular application works on a popular operating system without things breaking.

    2. Re:RC2 by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Well, its not so much that I'm surprised that SP2 is stable, I expect that seeing how XP is stable without it. What I was surprised about was that the BETA of SP2 was very stable.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    3. Re:RC2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it doesn't seem like the firewall was working too well (at least for outbound traffic).

      That's cause the firewall doesn't block any outbound connections.

    4. Re:RC2 by brian+ferullo · · Score: 1

      what wireless networking issues were occuring before you installed sp2? i've been having some connectivity problems with my 802.11g card and have so far been completely confounded as to the cause and possible solution.

    5. Re:RC2 by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Well...whenever I tried to play online games, I would often have connection problems. I found out that this could be solved by turning off the Wireless Zero Config (or something similar) service. Hope that helps.

      --
      SIGFAULT
    6. Re:RC2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had long delays in attaching to WPA enabled APs. I hope that has been corrected.

      In RC2, the popup blocker has been good. The firewall was enabled by default, but the installation took almost an hour on my laptop. Now I just have to find the upgrade path to the Gold release.

    7. Re:RC2 by Vantage13 · · Score: 1
      what wireless networking issues were occuring before you installed sp2?

      I think he might be referring to the issues discussed in this wired article. No idea if it is actually fixed in SP2 or not

    8. Re:RC2 by brian+ferullo · · Score: 1

      ahh, gotcha. yeah that seems to be the problem i'm having, though instead of mucking with the wireless zero config service i just disable the wirless access from the system tray and reenable it from the "connect to" panel conveniently set up in my start menu.
      +1, informative :)

    9. Re:RC2 by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      SP2 was supposed to upgrade the firewall to filter outbound connections, too.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  41. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1

    WTF? do away with this "Service Pack" nonsense? I don't have any problems with service packs. I would much rather be able to install a single service pack than manually install 1,001 individual bug fixes one by one (probably with a reboot after each one). This versioning is confusing to end users. Isn't the versioning just like; first came SP1 and now comes SP2 and next will come SP3. What is confusing about that? I hate microsoft with a passion and I have plenty of legitimate gripes with them but I honestly don't have any problem with them releasing service packs.

    Although I do seem to remember some of the NT service packs that really broke lots of things and frequently screwed up the systems so bad as to require a reinstall. Poorly created service packs suck ass but as long as they do what their supposed to do, fix bugs and maybe ad a few features then I don't have any problem with them. Obviously YMMV a lot.

  42. I waiting for.. by zulux · · Score: 4, Funny



    I going to hold out at wait for the service pack for SP2.

    (kidding)

    --

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

    1. Re:I waiting for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, adding that parenthetical "kidding" really wasn't necessary. Though your joke wasn't funny in the first place, making it stupidly obvious doesn't help at all.

    2. Re:I waiting for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is your comment. Go home.

  43. Windowsbeta nonresponsive by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    Windowsbeta.microsoft.com appears to be slashdotted...anywhere else this is mirrored? I'd prefer no torrent (even though a previous post of mine indicates im looking at them) because of connection issues (I get pathetic upstream, which makes getting good torrent rates difficult)

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Windowsbeta nonresponsive by AntiChris · · Score: 1

      windowsbeta.microsoft.com is slashdotted?!
      How rediculously ironic!!!

      --
      From 0 to drunk in $20
    2. Re:Windowsbeta nonresponsive by SeinJunkie · · Score: 1

      BTW, my torrents used to be slow as well, but after I set my maximum global upload to about 1/3 of my total upstream (you must be using a third-party BitTorrent app to do this, like Azureus), I noticed high increases in download speeds. From what I can tell, your client will be sending so many requests for pieces along with all of its data that it drowns itself out and many of the requests never make it to their destination. And, since no one knows you need those pieces, they never get sent to you. Lowering your global up allows for more headroom.

  44. Meh... by Hosehead17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We actually got an e-mail alert today from the company that makes our phone system server and client software that said if we installed XP SP2 it would break their software. Oh, and they have a patch forthcoming for the latest version, which we've had issues upgrading too. I don't know if this is Microsoft's fault or the company that wrote the software, most likely a little of both, but we won't be deploying for a while. The patch for our version isn't going to be release immediately. How many others are having this problem?

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

      Fucked by Cisco huh?...

  45. MD5SUM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone got an MD5SUM for the service pack? It would really suck to get a virus instead.

    1. Re:MD5SUM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think RonnyJ has it.... but don't be fooled by RonnieJ!

  46. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack by VidEdit · · Score: 1

    Perhaps my issue goes back to the way Windows NT 4 stayed version 4 instead of incrementing up with the service packs. End users at my company never knew what their computer was running since all of the updates were done locally at the time.

    --
  47. Trickle-down downloads by SilentChris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found this line interesting:

    "Microsoft will use metered downloads to update users steadily without bogging down the entire Internet."

    *Strokes chin* How do they do this, exactly? By IP? By Product Key? What determines when someone will get it?

    Hopefully we'll see SP2 on Torrents soon.

    1. Re:Trickle-down downloads by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      "Microsoft will use metered downloads to update users steadily without bogging down the entire Internet."

      *Strokes chin* How do they do this, exactly?

      They've installed a 56K modem for their outbound line to keep everyone on equal footing.

  48. can't get SP2 by osho_gg · · Score: 1

    It seems getting SP2 is right now harder than getting a gmail account

    1. Re:can't get SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok OverLord please send me my first invite
      to gmail
      at

      intel at toughguy dot net

      thanx 2 ya! hoo!!!!

    2. Re:can't get SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can send me an invite then?

    3. Re:can't get SP2 by jo42 · · Score: 1

      You haven't really tried, have you...?

  49. Pulled a rabbit out of where? by dimplemonkey · · Score: 1

    I believe MS engineers pulled the rabbit out of a place where the sun don't shine. Especially after Uncle Bill paid them a visit and threatened to pull their Starbucks machine out of the snack room!

  50. Hmmm... by rtilghman · · Score: 5, Funny


    Price for a laptop? $1500.00
    Price for Win XP Pro? $299.99
    Price for SP2? Free

    Resinstalling Windows XP, all your programs, and all your data after SP2 renders the computer unusable? Priceless

    -rt

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

      OMG PLUS 5 FUNNAY!@$# How do you do it??

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

      ...well at least after reinstalling Windows it will be faster than it was before you wipe out the bloatware that you had installed

    3. Re:Hmmm... by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Some of us are waiting for the fixes to the service pack before we consider installing it. M$ has never gotten anything right before the third try anyway.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot "TEH" and "LOLOL"

    5. Re:Hmmm... by lowe0 · · Score: 1

      Posting from SP2.

      Yeah, it must kill every machine it touches. I read it on /., so it must be right!

    6. Re:Hmmm... by Valar · · Score: 1

      ssh. It is easier to believe that a tremendous software company is going to release a patch for automatic propagation that renders all metal it touches into goo. Wouldn't want to put on our critical thinking hats, would we? (posted from XP pro SP2)

    7. Re:Hmmm... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Being too stupid to ghost backup to a DVDR?

      $2 :)

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    8. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean

      DVDRW - $2
      DVDR - $.20

  51. SP2....a little scary but... by slorge · · Score: 1

    Sass that hoopie Bill Gates. Now there's a frood who knows where his towel is.

    --
    Some people are like slinkys. They're useless, but it puts a smile on your face to push them down the stairs.
    1. Re:SP2....a little scary but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Zarquon singing fish!

  52. Please mod up! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    I just readed the original threads, and this popped into my mind immediatly. I mean, isn't it obvious?

    I'm not looking to bash Microsoft, but "it's only spyware" will not be a good explanation when machines stop working out of the blue.

  53. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack by essdodson · · Score: 1

    Just like there would be no need for kernel revs other than 2.4, 2.6, etc, right? Nothing ever needs patching except Windows, right?

    --
    scott
  54. MD5 Sum from WinBeta by Airw0lf · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the MD5 sum from WinBeta. (Found at neowin.net)

    WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

  55. Strange. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wine seems to dislike this program...

  56. Yup, that is the official download's MD5SUM too by Critical_ · · Score: 1

    Yup, that is the official download's MD5SUM too. Be careful though, there are many trojaned copies floating around.

  57. Official download.microsoft.com link by Snover · · Score: 0
    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:Official download.microsoft.com link by Snover · · Score: 1

      Hm, I'm a retard. Please mod that down, since it's actually a German SP1 link (WTF?)

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    2. Re:Official download.microsoft.com link by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Why does it say "XPSP2", then?

    3. Re:Official download.microsoft.com link by bconway · · Score: 1

      It looks like it could be right, it's 266 MB. I'm getting a steady 400 KB/s on it, I'll check the md5sums against the torrents when it's done.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    4. Re:Official download.microsoft.com link by bconway · · Score: 1

      818d45103b2bc82a346da320d6abd4c3 xpsp2.exe

      That does not match the claimed md5sum of:

      Filename: WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe
      MD5: 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

      Who knows what it is.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  58. Here's how they are going to do it by WhoDaresWins · · Score: 4, Informative

    As per the Windows XP SP2 RTM press release this is how they are going to do it -

    The timing for customers to receive the Service Pack 2 download through Automatic Updates depends on a number of factors, including the customer's Internet usage, location, language and the level of Internet demand for Service Pack 2. Automatic Updates uses spare Internet capacity to progressively download updates without interfering with daily PC use. Microsoft expects to distribute Service Pack 2 to approximately 100 million PCs through Automatic Updates over the next two months.

    The progresive download feature being talked about refers to the "Background Intelligent Transfer Service" BITS. BITS transfers files using leftover bandwidth. For example, if you are currently using 60 percent of your bandwidth, BITS will only use the remaining 40 percent. BITS also maintains file transfers when a network disconnection occurs, or a computer needs to be restarted: When the network connection is re-established, BITS will continue where it left off.

    1. Re:Here's how they are going to do it by photomic · · Score: 1

      >BITS also maintains file transfers when a network >disconnection occurs, or a computer needs to be >restarted: When the network connection is >re-established, BITS will continue where it left >off. Um, ZTERM?

    2. Re:Here's how they are going to do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow, BITS sounds like amazing packet filtering technology! Does Microsoft have a patent on that?

      Under linux I would have to go to all the trouble of enabling 'wondershaper' and telling it which ports or hosts -- microsoft.com, debian/suse mirror, whatever -- are low priority.

    3. Re:Here's how they are going to do it by iammaxus · · Score: 1

      Holy fucking shit: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=U TF-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=266MB+*+100%2C000%2C000&b tnG=Search

  59. Bad Press and Release.... by ArtisteTerroriste · · Score: 1

    Given the recent bad press, I think the PR guys (those not digging up old Vietnam skipboat veterans of Linus) at Microsoft won the battle of "missing another deadline".

    And if memory serves, this usually means worse PR disaster when mom and pop's computers start blowing up because the engineers lost the day.

    Serves them right if it happens. Not to mention, two updates released outside of the regular Wednesday schedule... I gotta change spagetti night now!

    1. Re:Bad Press and Release.... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      There's two ways to look at it:

      1) bad, because all your friends will be phoning up expecting you to 'fix' their PCs
      2) good, because all you friends will be phoning up expecting you to 'fix' their PCs, and you can name your own price.

    2. Re:Bad Press and Release.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a service pack. Doesn't fall under hotfix schedule. Granted, it's coming down through AU/WU/SUS, but hopefully if you're relying on the Wednesday schedule you're also giving 2 days lead time after any hotfix before approving in SUS ;-)

  60. You do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do, of course.

    Oh. Was that a rhetorical question?

  61. I will by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

    vmware ;)

  62. Re: your .sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the Devil christians warned you about.

    Darwin had it right. Are you so afraid of science you can't reconcile evolution with your faith in God?

  63. **Congratulations to our 1,000,000,000 visitor!** by BlueJay465 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft has been slashdotted.

    I'm going to DISNEYLAND!!

  64. XP SP2 distributed at Tech Ed earlier in the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I attended Microsoft's New Zealand TechEd 2004. It was a 3-day event, and along with all the usual crap/goodies they give you, they were handing out copies of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

    Thousands of them. They were encouraging people to just take handfuls.

    That was on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week. Perhaps it was just a release candidate?

    Did anyone here attend, and can they clear up the confusion?

    I don't have the CD with me, so I can't have a closer look to check myself.

    Cheers

  65. People w/ RC's by wviperw · · Score: 1

    So does anybody know what we people with RC's are supposed to do? I've got RC2 of SP2, and I just checked the Windows Update site, but didn't see anything that hinted at installing the final of SP2.

    --
    Nothing disturbs me more than blind loyalism towards some unrealistic and over-idealistic notion of one's nationality.
    1. Re:People w/ RC's by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      It's not available at Windows Update yet, probably in a day or so. If you don't have a Windows Beta login, check out the torrent links that others have posted to get it.

      XP SP2 final installed just fine over my RC2 installation. It barfed when I tried installing over a sliptstreamed install, but the way around the is to build a slipstreamed SP2 install and do an upgrade (which worked great with build 2162, the final beta that was pushed out - I've not tried it with SP2 final yet but I see no reason for it not to work... wait this is Microsoft am I nuts?).

    2. Re:People w/ RC's by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I love this....it was all over the web yesterday that it's been released but it probably won't hit til next week sometime but it will be out very soon. The final bit has probably only been released to beta testers first then us regular users can get it....eventually.

      --

      Gorkman

  66. Direct links by Rethcir · · Score: 1

    Any direct link (ftp/http) mirrors for this yet? My bittorent doesn't work and my autoupdate isn't popping up yet either..

  67. also available on MSDN by thehink · · Score: 1

    so, uh, whats the difference between this WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe download and the en_winxp_sp2.iso available on MSDN?
    is it just the XPSP2.EXE file from that image?

    The iso was posted this morning (8/6/2004 8:57:00 AM) and weighs in at 475.35MB !!! (just ~10MB shy of the size of the original Windows XP iso)

    1. Re:also available on MSDN by Airw0lf · · Score: 1

      so, uh, whats the difference between this WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe download and the en_winxp_sp2.iso available on MSDN? is it just the XPSP2.EXE file from that image? No, I imagine the .iso is a full installation disc for WinXp, with SP2 INTEGRATED into it. This allows a clean installation directly to WinXp SP2. The .exe file allows an upgrade of an existing installation. However, the .exe file can be used to "slipstream" itself into an older Windows Xp install base. This allows you to create something similar to the .iso file you will find on MSDN. More information can be found here: http://www.viperlair.com/articles/howto/software/s lipstream/winxpsp1a/ The guide linked to is for SP1a, but the general idea should hold for SP2.

    2. Re:also available on MSDN by relentlessflame · · Score: 1

      Actually, the ISO image posted on MSDN is just the Service Pack, but it also includes a 150MB installer for "Symbol Files". The SP2 installer itself seems to be the same, weighing in at 265MB. I imagine that the full Windows XP with SP2 ISO images will be coming soon.

  68. The Firewall by hawaiian717 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From one of the PCMag articles:
    Microsoft has included a programmatic interface for Windows Firewall that allows an application to do things like set FirewallEnabled to FALSE, add itself to the list of AuthorizedApplications, or change the configuration of GloballyOpenPorts. Our concern here is that a malicious application could turn off Windows Firewall or, more likely, mark itself as an authorized application. Corporate administrators can disable some or all local configurations, which will prevent programs from making changes; but ultimately, Microsoft maintains, individuals still have to be smart about what apps they run. Even the best deadbolt won't protect your house once you've let the bad guys in.

    I agree with PCMag on this. Microsoft still doesn't get it. To continue the Microsoft analogy, they gave the bad guys a key to the deadbolt.

    Looks like I'll be continuing to ignore the built in firewall in favor of a real one.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1631256,00.as p

    --
    End of Line.
    1. Re:The Firewall by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Yeah the new firewall does seem a bit pointless...

      They even *encourage* software to add itself to the exception list.

      They've made it harder for stuff to break (blocking activex, making it hard to run things automatically) but once something is on your machine the first thing it'll do is blow your firewall wide open.

    2. Re:The Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like the ability for setup programs to disable the "driver not signed/certified!" warning before installing a driver.

      Seen it happen... this particular setup gave a nice warning and reverted the setting afterward.

    3. Re:The Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The code must be running with administrative privelages to modify the firewall settings. And, if the malicious code already has administrative rights, it can certainly do a lot more damage than turning the firewall off.

    4. Re:The Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, if the program already has administrative rights on the machine it won't matter, it could replace the TCP/IP stack. Otherwise, yes, administrative rights would be needed to override corporate or other settings. Good. From my testing of SP2 beta, it asks you if you want to allow some connections through the firewall. This was for, I think, the SMS 2003 administrative tools. So either that's the firewall just asking, or SMS using the new API, I don't know which.

    5. Re:The Firewall by snellgrove2 · · Score: 1

      lol, thats pathetic! and like you say.. they still dont get it.

      its just adding more code to windows, making it even bigger, and slower than before without really doing very much at all.

      sounds very much like a MS Update to me!

  69. i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    hopefully the machine can handle a bit of slashdotting ; )

    http://phb.engr.colostate.edu:28888

    no guarentees how long it stays up.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    1. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Snover · · Score: 1

      Thanks, mate. Damn useful since torrent downloads are totally fucked on TWC.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    2. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      indulge me, and let me know how fast your pulling it from me at.........thanks

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    3. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Snover · · Score: 1

      It started at nice 330kB/s, now it's down to a consistent 179kB/s, though I'm not certain that isn't also due to my retardo cable company.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    4. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by chadw17 · · Score: 1

      33kb/ps here...Don't know if I'll finish it, trying some different BTs too.

    5. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about 35K/s now

    6. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      I'm getting about 20KB/s...not bad :-)

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    7. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Snover · · Score: 1

      D'oh.
      WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe is not a valid Win32 application.
      MD5sum 3f758fa0e7934555d9d70bff137a4299

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    8. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      bad transfer :( try it again. I checked the source file and its got the right md5sum,

      59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7

      I also switched over to a much more powerful machine to handle the load. Use the same link, it will redirect you.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    9. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting 127 and downloading some binaries from newgroups at the same time.
      Not bad for basic DSL

      thanks, by the way.

    10. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by TCM · · Score: 1

      I also switched over to a much more powerful machine to handle the load.

      Pardon the ignorance but what load do you get from serving static files? Network should be saturated much earlier than even a lowly powered server.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    11. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by ikea5 · · Score: 1

      23k here

    12. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      i didnt have enough ram to keep apache happy.

      firewall box = 128 megs

      new box = 1 gig ram

      at least the firewall box didnt crash, thank god for linux (fedora core 2, kernel 2.6.7 (custom build) for the curious).

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    13. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Link310 · · Score: 1

      I'm getting 1.14MB/Sec right now, it'll be done by the time I finish this post.

    14. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      944 K/s for me over Internet2. It took a bit for the Save File dialog to come up, but the actual transfer is fast.

    15. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera estimates d/l time at: 28 hrs, 17 minutes, 27 seconds (on 28.8k)

      I think I'll stick with Win 3.1:)

    16. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first attempt died at 6 megs; retried and still going at 90+ megs... averaging about 1.4m on a t1.

      good thing school's not in session yet, the dorms would have no pipe left for p2p... hehe.

    17. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by GregChant · · Score: 1

      I downloaded this from your server an hour or two ago (before you moved the server) and was getting about 170-200k/s. Definitely the internet highlight of the day; thanks a lot.

    18. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Indy1 · · Score: 1

      lol, wouldnt matter, we block most of the p2p and throttle the dorms like mad ;) Its nice being IT :)

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    19. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting 380K/sec on my cablemodem.

      Thanks for posting it!

    20. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by cwolfsheep · · Score: 1

      150-170KBs over Sprint-Earthlink DSL, using Firefox 0.9.3. Thanks for the post, of course.

      Also been a beta tester of RC1 & RC2: RC2 still had bugs, but performance has been excellent, and the firewall works a lot better than it did in RC1. We'll see how this pans out: I get to unload RC2 first, load this, fix my apps...

      --

      Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
    21. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      300k/sec thx man

    22. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Quabbo · · Score: 1

      I got ~300kbps. Installed fine =]

      --
      -Matthew http://www.quabbo.com
    23. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      512KB/Sec, beats the 12KB I was pulling on torrent

    24. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by kweerboi · · Score: 1

      That file looks to be Build 2158 and not 2180.

      --
      Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
    25. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it does check out (I thought that was a mistake too)

      Run System Information, it will say the following:

      Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)"

      the 04 is the year
      the 08 is the month
      the 03 is the day in that month
      and the 2158 is the time it was complied as in 21:58 or 9.58pm

      I also checked the MD5 tag. It says 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7 with a file size of 266.01 MB

    26. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by tono · · Score: 1

      yeah CSU is good about killing dorm bandwidth.. mostly because of when I went there, and we were all playing Quake3 and we all had our own servers set up. They really didn't like that. ;) But I'm pulling at 371 from you. I live like a mile away though.

      --
      cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
    27. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Snover · · Score: 1

      Yeah, damn HTTP, it should have block-hashes like BitTorrent :)
      Here's hoping for HTTP/1.2!!

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    28. Re:i threw up a mirror of sp2 by Pherrite · · Score: 1

      380 KB/s. Thanks.

  70. FOSS copies MS yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you download the nightly Firefox, you will see an enchancement to the popup blocker that looks awfully a lot like the screenshot of IE's popup blocking feature.

  71. Screenshot by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

    Of the betasite's download page?? That's getting a little pathetic, seriously.

    --
    Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
  72. Very Frightening by thpdg · · Score: 1
    Did anyone actually read what this service pack adds? I'm reading the PC Magazine article, and this is really pissing me off.
    "but the only sure way we know to run an attachment that OE deems unsafe is to copy it onto a non-NTFS drive."
    Meaning that Microsoft controls the files I send and receive on my own PC? I don't like that idea at all.

    There are plenty of others. It's pretty scary. Some of it's on by default, others can't be shut off. I guess I'll be shopping for something non-windows, very soon. Any recommendations!?

    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    1. Re:Very Frightening by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      So use an email program besides Outlook!

    2. Re:Very Frightening by yeremein · · Score: 1

      the only sure way we know to run an attachment that OE deems unsafe is to copy it onto a non-NTFS drive

      Sounds like XP disables execute permission on saved attachments. Copying it to a FAT volume works because FAT doesn't support permissions.

      Just like you have to chmod u+x before you can run something you download in Linux. Not a bad idea, but nothing new either.

    3. Re:Very Frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right click on the file, and select "Unblock".

  73. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Being on dialup (that connects at 28.8k at best)it is a total bitch to download. Sure there is a free CD available, but when the hell is that going to show up?

    Guess what, jimbob? If you download all the individual patches it will take longer because some of the later patches replace some of the files from the earlier patches. It's better to have them all rolled into a single service pack.

    Having a CD sent to you is a reasonable solution. It's not like if you have to wait two weeks for the pack you're going to get backdoored in the meantime, because you can still apply the critical updates while you're waiting.

    If you're not happy with that solution, go find someone who has broadband and get them to download it and put it on a CD for you.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  74. color scheme cure by zogger · · Score: 1

    it's real easy. Goto your /. home page prefs, switch to the low-res lite version. Works just as good, you get all the same news, etc, loads faster, no strange colors, no bloat, no nuthin but what you really need. Took me about 15 minutes to get used to it, now if I go back and use full flavor I think "I don't need all this stuff, just the facts ma'am". It's nice, give it a try!

  75. yea by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd never trust any "RonnieJ" for a reliable MD5 checksum. A "RonnyJ," on the other hand, is a completely different matter.

  76. holy crap, i cant believe the box is still alive by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    # w

    20:35:29 up 26 days, 21:32, 3 users, load average: 23.07, 13.65, 6.75

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  77. Fedora Core 2 [nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, there's No Text in this comment.

  78. Re:holy crap, i cant believe the box is still aliv by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 0
    holy crap, i cant believe the box is still alive
    Yeah, it looks like the network at colostate.edu lives up to its name :)
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  79. this bites by uncreativ · · Score: 1

    from someone who works in a college setting--all the kids coming to school will probably NOT have this installed when they arrive in 2-3 weeks. M$ doesn't seem like they will put in on windowsupdate for another week or two.

    So, everyone gets to school, then installs SP2, and then things break....blech.

  80. Yeah alright... by Stevyn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is very interesting, but does anyone know when kernel 2.6.8 or KDE 3.3 will be stable?

    1. Re:Yeah alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kde 3.3.0 is being tested and packaged. It will be released by next week ;)

  81. My question for you is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what business uses XP on its servers?

  82. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by WitfulThinking · · Score: 1

    If you download all the individual patches it will take longer because some of the later patches replace some of the files from the earlier patches. It's better to have them all rolled into a single service pack.

    Besides the fact that the service pack contains updates which I may not even have a use for, I understand what your saying here. However, it is a lot easier for me to download several small chunks over a long period of time than a 260+MB file at once. I dont have much of an aversion to downloading that much data at 28.8 (as painful and time consuming as that is), but it is a little risky to anything breakable in my immediate area if that file gets corrupted at 95%.

    Obviously service packs have some use, but it would be convienient if the individual pieces were available also. For the download and also for choosing what pieces to install. (not every thing in that service pack is a security update, or a fix of a previous security update, and I highly doubt I want all that MS bloa^H^H^H^Hfunctionality anyway.)

  83. Re:holy crap, i cant believe the box is still aliv by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    mother of god...........

    # w
    20:55:55 up 26 days, 21:52, 3 users, load average: 45.87, 39.03, 27.88

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  84. Install Server 2003. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's XP, without all that stuff in XP you don't like.

    And no service packs! Because they left out all the shitty stuff.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  85. Re:Time to do away with this Service Pack by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I diagree with your comments.

    After all, the Mozilla web browser went from 1.7 to 1.7.1 to 1.7.2 pretty quickly, and of course many other components in Linux commercial distributions do need to be updated as security vulnerabilites are found and/or improved versions of the Linux components are released.

  86. What about pirated copies? by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

    I have some firends, uh yeah, that's it, friends, that are running with XP PRO VLK and a bad key. They are out of town, leave their computer on, and have Auto-Updates turned on. Needles to say, they also leave their DSL connection up.

    Any idea if they will still be able to use their computers on Monday morning? I've heared rumors that SP2 will lock you out, not only of your updates, but from logging in as well until you can provide a good key.

    --
    This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
    1. Re:What about pirated copies? by npike · · Score: 1

      That probably is a false rumour - that would be too many "false positives". *shrugs* Im just going to wait for someone elses "friends" to install before "i" do ;]

    2. Re:What about pirated copies? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the problems with leaving a windows xp box open to the internet without a firewall (presumably) will lead to more problems than the windows update.

    3. Re:What about pirated copies? by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

      didn't mention that they weren't running a firewall... funny you should deduce that from, oh wait, I just said that they're running always-on(line) with xp. Correct deduction given the information I provided, however, as dumb as my frieds are (hoping you read this John), they're not _complete_ dumbasses. They're running behind a linksys dsl router that I pointed out to them.

      Forget about the online sequrity issues here. Am I^h^h^hre my friends going to be able to use their computers on monday?

      --
      This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
    4. Re:What about pirated copies? by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

      i have talked to several people who have been locked out by rc2 but managed to fix it. I hope to not need to fix it, assuming my friends can change their cd-key.

      --
      This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
  87. Well, to be sure... by halivar · · Score: 4, Funny

    You'll want to use the --deep option to make sure all your dependencies are in order like so:

    emerge -uDv sys-kernel/windows-xp-sp2

    Oh, wait a sec... I'm not even supposed to be here, am I?

  88. Gold release vs RC1 by CyberSlugGump · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of major differences between this gold version and Release Candidate 2 of SP2 ?

    1. Re:Gold release vs RC1 by Stryfe13 · · Score: 1

      The earlier builds are just beta builds to try out. This is the actual final release.

  89. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can Anyone Provide a Direct Link to the ISO on MSDN? It will be faster than the BT download right now.... 2 Megabit Connection.... 2.1 KiloByts Download...

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

      you should learn how to configure your BT client and/or your firewall.

      dumbass.

  90. What goes around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    comes around.

    Other companies, such as Symantec Corp. and McAfee Inc., already offer similar security protections, such as firewalls, plus more in-depth antivirus protection and other features. Gates conceded that he's heard complaints that parts of the free update, such as its firewall, duplicate features others sell separately. Those companies now "need to move up to another level of innovation," he said.

    Same can be said about your clan, buddy. Pick a different business model. ANY model. Just as long as it's not your current one. Or don't. That's cool, too. There's already an emulator for Windows out in the freeworld. We won't lose all our favorite games.

  91. fast download by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://w3.gorge.net/shadow/xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe

  92. torrent here by timecop · · Score: 0

    xp sp2 torrent.

    The one posted on suprnova is now dead (it was hosted on a cablemodem tracker).

    1. Re:torrent here by AveBelial · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Holy Shit! Seeds : 39 Leeches : 22 Thats a new one on any BT Download ive used!

  93. windows update server by narmer65 · · Score: 1

    I know the parent is being sarcastic but I wish to inform those (hopefully few) sysadmins that are using automatic update for their company machines.

    Use SUS. You point your windows clients to update from your SUS. Since you approve updates that will be placed on your machine you won't get suprised by an automatic update.

  94. Re:Time to do away with this Service Pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat after me. Linux goooood. Microsoft baaad. Linux good. Microsoft bad.

    Thanks.

  95. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    Funny? He wasn't being funny, it's insightful. The Linux version scheme is no better than the what MS uses, oh my bad, I mean M$.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  96. windowsbeta.microsoft.com Removed link?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just got into the windowsbeta.microsoft.com site, no sign of the SP2 Download, all it has is a notice that the SP2 RC2 Has been removed.... Am i being retarded and not looking hard enough?

  97. Let me know how it turns out by sjoel · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In the mean time ill keep running linux, thanks anyway. Doh!

  98. Don't donwload that. It's SP2 RC1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do a search for the link on Google.

  99. I've been using it.. by revividus · · Score: 1

    at work for about a month (RC 2, anyway, the beta version). Windows update has not worked since I installed it.

    Obviously, the windows update issue should be fixed in the released version, and it must not be effecting everyone, or I presume they would not release it. But my sp2-rc2 had never done windows update properly (that is to say, it failed to install any available updates consistently, every time).

    I uninstalled sp2 from that machine today, and I won't be putting it back till I hear some pretty rave reviews. Okay, maybe not rave reviews, but I at least want to hear that it works. :-)

    1. Re:I've been using it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      at work for about a month (RC 2, anyway, the beta version). Windows update has not worked since I installed it.

      Obviously, the windows update issue should be fixed in the released version, and it must not be effecting everyone, or I presume they would not release it. But my sp2-rc2 had never done windows update properly (that is to say, it failed to install any available updates consistently, every time).

      I uninstalled sp2 from that machine today, and I won't be putting it back till I hear some pretty rave reviews. Okay, maybe not rave reviews, but I at least want to hear that it works. :-)


      This is just a guess, but I think the Windows Update thing is probably deliberate blocking, rather than a bug.

      The updates released on Windows Update are designed for released systems, so installing them on betas might lead to all sorts of problems. Moreover, a lot of fixes released as updates are probably already in the SP betas (or RCs, whatever). It therefore seems reasonable to block Windows Update for beta/RC builds, or at least offer a different set of updates specifically for those builds (if there are any critical fixes released that aren't in the SP).

    2. Re:I've been using it.. by revividus · · Score: 1

      This is just a guess, but I think the Windows Update thing is probably deliberate blocking, rather than a bug That makes sense, except the one "update" that was always listed seemed to be a sort of dummy or test update; I presumed it was there for testing, just to ensure everything was working. As a postscript: after rebooting my SP2-free machine on the following Monday, explorer crashed every on every log in, even as local admin, and even in safe mode. My bad for uninstalling beta software that reached over my entire OS...

  100. Not the right file ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded a file called xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe and the md5sum is different: 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01

  101. another edu mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://134.129.142.12/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.e xe

    edu mirror. 100mbit, athlon 1800xp, 1gig ram. leech away.

    1. Re:another edu mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks getting 358KB down

    2. Re:another edu mirror by cmacmanus · · Score: 1

      Ditto. You rock. ;)

    3. Re:another edu mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great mirror but no one else download I want a fast connection. 375kps Thanks

    4. Re:another edu mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks :D Much apreciated.

  102. Re: your .sig by calebb · · Score: 1

    Click on my name & look at my info box if you're curious about my background in science.

  103. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in todays internet, thats true. Like it or not. You do have choices, use linux, and have more smaller patches. Or write better software yourself. Yes I know it sucks, but its just not as simple as a toaster...

  104. I dunno, maybe they left something out :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay I'm trying to figure out these 2 weird things with SP2 ive done slipstream with 3 diff downloads inc the torrent posted here.

    #1
    After finishing my root drive does not match this pic*, there is no dotnetfx folder which is odd because if you run setup.exe, perform additional tasks theres a install .net framework option that does nothing.

    *Pic in question: http://koti.mbnet.fi/lbl/nero2.jpg
    Source: http://www.winbeta.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=7 &t=5640

    #2

    Under the support/tools/deploy cab to look up new unattend stuff the ref.chm one that is in the slipstream doesnt match the one found on this page* which has the new sp2 strings.

    * http://unattended.msfn.org/xp/sp2changes.htm

  105. Pirated Versions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the deal for those with 'borrowed' version of xp? Did we decide we can install it or not?

  106. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that CD should be a nice coaster.

    H4H4 3y3 4m k3w1 BcUz 3y3 m4k3 pHuN 0f mIcR0$0pH7!!!11!!!1!!! j00 411 5uK 455!!!!1!!1!1!!!1OMFGLOL!!!!11!!1

  107. If MS can, so can Slashdot by scruffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Microsoft can release this service pack, then surely there is hope that /. can change this horrid color scheme.

    1. Re:If MS can, so can Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do it yourself; switch to "lightmode". It's not that hard. Esp for someone with a five-figure uid. :)

    2. Re:If MS can, so can Slashdot by alex_ware · · Score: 1

      now we need a css file for light mode so it looks like good ol slashdot

      --
      If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
  108. Re:holy crap, i cant believe the box is still aliv by transiit · · Score: 1

    save your logs.

    if nothing else, it might be fun self-indulgence to plot out how fast and furious the requests came in.

    -transiit

  109. alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.ms-beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's complete on alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.ms-beta

    Cheers,
    t

  110. A billion dollars to develop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An article on CNN about this service pack says that MS spent almost a BILLION dollars on creating it. Does that seem excessively high to anybody else?

    I'm betting Zonelabs didn't have to invest a billion dollars to make Zonealarm, which is according to most reviewers still a better firewall.

  111. If RTW is Monday, why is this such a huge deal? by Aslan72 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You're foolish if you've got auto-update turned on right now - if anything just to prevent it from catching you off guard. It boggles my mind why everyone is like rats scurrying around to find something to eat with this on a Friday night.

    Not intentionally being flamebait, but can't it wait till Monday so that you're for sure your downloading the right thing and not some ankle bitter's bot script that's embedded in their copy of SP2?

    --pete

  112. Forget Gold by superpulpsicle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Usually when M$ goes gold it doesn't mean a damn thing. For any M$ patch or software, it has to go...

    alpha

    beta

    release candidate 1

    release candidate 2

    release candidate 3

    release candidate 4

    IRC warez beta

    msdn

    gold

    release candidate 5

    GA

    release to manufacturing

    blue screen

    release candidate 6 .. ..

    1. Re:Forget Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldst thou please produce evidence of an RC 4 for anything? A55Hat.

    2. Re:Forget Gold by farmhick · · Score: 3, Funny

      I see you have gold and blue in there. But you forgot about the final one...

      They've gone plaid.

      --
      I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
    3. Re:Forget Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG 1+ w4z 4 j0k3z0r d00d3r!

  113. reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    emails sent to abuse@NODAK.EDU

    thanks for informing

    1. Re:reported by CybeRHiDe · · Score: 1

      Now it appears to be down. I hope this anonymous coward gets some real life karma for this. I need my sp2 fix!.

      --
      - Signature, Not Today.
    2. Re:reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As of 9:28est this d/l is still working

  114. There should be tits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because this section looks like ass.

  115. "borrowed" SP2 Install by AveBelial · · Score: 0

    I can now say that anyone who had "lost" their CD key and found another *ahem* can install SP2 as long as the second three digit part of their serial is 640, there are tools to change your code and to create one that will have the right 640, also as long as its not one of the known pirated codes.

  116. Auto update SP? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Is this the first SP to be delivered this way? Usually the user has to visit MS's site for service packs. I wonder if every user be it residential or business with auto-update on will be hit with a dozen pop-up boxes on configuring the new firewall, activeX, etc in a couple weeks or whenever MS sends it down the wire.

  117. Testers Did Have Final Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the PR guys had their way, this release would have come out a month ago. Heck, if it was up to them, this release wouldn't be necessary at all. Remember the old marketing theory that even bad PR gets your company's name in the papers?

    At Microsoft, the testers did have final say. Certainly, there was pressure to kick this thing out the door. However, the first RTM build was ten versions behind the final release. I certainly hope it's as good as we think it is. However, when you have hundreds of millions of customers, you can't think of everything.

    As for mom and pop's computers... If they start blowing up, I'll guess it's due to whatever software they use that wasn't written to Window's specifications. If some lazy developer at some other company didn't take the time to code something by the rules, circumventing the security features or whatever, then of course Mom's apps aren't going to work... And it's NOT Microsoft's fault. These systems WILL crash since we all know how developers love breaking the rules.

  118. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    M$

  119. Release schedule by Val314 · · Score: 1

    source
    8/6 Release to manufacturing
    8/9 Release to Microsoft Download Center (network installation package)
    8/9 Release to MSDN subscription site (CD ISO image)
    8/10 Release to Automatic Updates (for machines running pre-release versions of Windows XP Service Pack 2 only)
    8/16 Release to Automatic Updates (for machines NOT running pre-releases versions of Windows XP Service Pack 2)
    8/16 Release to Software Update Services
    Later in August Release to Windows Update for interactive user installations

  120. I love the new IE security features by LaimGod · · Score: 0
    I love the new IE security features.
    I installed SP2, went to Windows Update, and the download for the updater service was block as being insecure.

    "In the end, We're all fucked."

  121. Re: your .sig by randyest · · Score: 1

    You've an MS in organic chemistry but you work as an Information Systems Coordinator? You must be an awesome chemist.

    Oh, but you do spew lots of bullshit that is subsequently squashed by informed, sane replies.









    You're a sad fuck man.

    --
    everything in moderation
  122. Where does it save the temporary files? by eetu · · Score: 1

    When I last installed a Windows SP (for W2K), Windows Update was stupid enough to save the temporary files on my Linux partition which was mounted read-only.

    I don't know how it was possible in the first place, but that's what it did. Then, when it tried to start the actual install process, it couldn't find mskrnl32.dll or whatever, and I ended up reinstalling Windows.

    I've also witnessed the same behaviour on XP: I was downloading a small package from Windows Update and wondered why it took so long. It turned out that it was saving the temporary files over the VPN connection to a server share that was mounted at the time!

    I think there's a pattern that can be found from those two examples: it tried to save the temp files to the partition with the most free space, regardless of the type of the partition. I wonder whether it still does that. Anyway, I'm making sure that I've unmounted every single share and partition except for C:\ when I start updating stuff from Windows Update.

    --
    "If I can't have a revolution, what is there to dance about?" - Albert Meltzer
    1. Re:Where does it save the temporary files? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      I have seen this happen with other Windows updates (hotfixes) as well!
      When you run VMware, it by default creates a drive for sharing information between sessions. I think it is called Z: by default. The root directory of this drive is not writable, it contains folders that are writable.
      Many updates fail when this condition is present.

      I think the updater does a check for writability only via the ACLs, and fails to notice a drive that is non-writable by design, but does not advertise this via the ACL.
      (of course it recognizes CD-ROM drives as non-writable)

    2. Re:Where does it save the temporary files? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be better off saving SP2 to a floppy, then install from there - shouldn't interfere with your open sores stuff.

  123. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    zooooooooooommmmm!

    There went the point! Sorry you missed it!

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  124. Re:wrong - you can control it by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

    "btw. you need to realize how automatic updates work - you do *not* need to be an administrator to use it. They download in the background and and are made 'live' by a scheduled reboot overnight. You could have all your users as 'guest' and you'd still be hosed."

    WRONG! *You* need to realise how Automatic Updates work. you have complete control over a lot of aspects of how it works and so don't have to have it download and install automatically and don't have to have it prompt non-administrative users

    see http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/susinfo .shtml

  125. Actyally, I'm wary of this happening by allio · · Score: 1

    When I tried to install SP1, it installed with no complaints (generated corp key), but upon a subsequent reboot, I couldn't log in. Windows spat an error message at me about not being able to authenticate and dumped me back at the login screen. Safe mode had the same result. Fortunately this was a brand new install, so I just started from scratch. I think I'll be passing on SP2, though.

  126. XP Sp2 download links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:XP Sp2 download links by DesertJester · · Score: 1

      getting an over 40kbs download off this one right now...ty..:D

      --
      Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
  127. Everybody is talking about it .... by Akimotos · · Score: 2, Funny

    So this must be hot. I downloaded a file of 266MB and I have this nice icon standing on my OS X desktop. Now what?

    1. Re:Everybody is talking about it .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just double click the icon, you will then be updated to win98seOSXLonghorn

  128. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And saying... Red Hat 7.3, kernel: 2.6.x.y, gcc: 3.4.1, etc... is less confusing?

    Yes.

    Next question?

  129. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

    GP wasn't saying that is better, he was saying that it was not ideal, and that a better system could be implemented. A better system could also be implemented for Linux distros. Gentoo would be a bit hard though...

    --
    Not a sentence!
  130. Re: your .sig by calebb · · Score: 1

    No need to cuss ;-)

    Since you're interested... I actually am a decent chemist. I'm even published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    But since you ask about why I work as an Information Systems Coordinator, that's a bit longer story. I started college early - in fact, I finished my Bachelor's in Chemistry when I was 18 & my Master's when I was 21. So as you can imagine, at that age, I wasn't certain what I wanted to do with my life! I'm a quick learner, so it was easy for me to master the UNIX (Well, Solaris 2.6, 7, 8, 9, Tru64, HPUX, Irix, AIX, Linux (Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake) & maybe one or two other flavors... mostly System V though, I wasn't too keen on BSD), Windows & MacOS operating systems. Believe it or not, my biggest weakness as an IS Coordinator is the administrative & managerial responsibilities!

    As far as the thread you linked, it maintained a +5 insightful for a good 36 hours after I posted it. (It ate ~20 mod points within the first 36 hours). Those that agreed with my points moved on. Those that did not kept coming back as they received additional mod points and modded me down to flamebait. Oh well, I don't care so much about karma as I do opening peoples' eyes to the truth!

  131. Lots of errors by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Windows Beta site is really getting hammered right now and giving 500 errors so don't be surprised if you can't get in.

    Wow. That's 96 more errors than I got last time.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  132. Pfft! by QuiescentWonder · · Score: 1

    Imagine what it's going to be like trying to download SP2 RTM when it's finally released. The first few who come accross it will have no problem getting. What happens when everyone who has automatic updates on automatically downloads a 266M file at 3:00 AM? I'm glad I don't have to pay for that bandwidth.

  133. I had to say... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

    Does it run on Linux? Given that I just ran into the lameness filter, can we get a bayesian lameness filter? It would work better and not be nearly as annoying.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  134. Tickle my Akamai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just grab off one of 14000 Akamai servers.

  135. interesting cultural differences by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's interesting how drastically different the Windows and Linux culture (or maybe I should say mindset) is amongst professionals. (Don't mark me as a flame/troll, hear me out...)

    When Windows comes out with a new releases (Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.), people tend to 'hold back' and wait to see if it breaks things. Even with point releases (SP1, SP2, etc.) there seems to be a fair amount of trepidation when considering to upgrade even a personal machine - after all, not only do you need to reinstall Windows, you also have to reinstall every fucking application, and likely delete or move files around that are in the wrong part of the fs tree that you want saved, or what have you. It can take a long, long time to do all this, particularly if the machine is a personal machine and hasn't been reinstalled in years.

    Linux is quite the opposite, for the most part. New beta release? People hit the download servers like a rugby player hits the after-game party. Some folks (debian stable fans) might hold back a bit, but it seems like, for the majority of desktop users, they want the latest, greatest thing. Installing all the applications is, for the most part, trivial: set everything up to install, and click "Next", then come back an hour later and you're ready to go (once again, for the most part). The time investment is significantly lower to get the needed software installed (knowledge of how to do it not withstanding).

    I recently had to reinstall a Windows desktop machine from scratch (full format). The whole process, from the insertion of the Windows disk into the drive, to the "fuck, I'm finally done. I need (another) drink," took nearly 4 hours due to having to constantly insert various software disks, continual reboots for software updates and driver finickyness, and this was a fairly modern machine (installing win2k, axp 2000+, 512M, 7200rpm 80G).

    IMO, the best thing MS could do for Longhorn, now that they've supposedly fixed their security underpinning problems, would be to make a 'universal' install mechanism so that reinstallation of a system would be relatively trivial. Make a 'network install' wizard which would install the core OS, and then query a server on the network (or a local disk) which would contain directories (or disk images, I guess) of applications or games - whatever. It would then install the software without prompting for the serial, name, or what have you.

    As a result, I would imagine that all software written for longhorn would then be required to use a specific 'installation api', so MS could have more control over security and other such things, in addition to simply being able to install it via this method. This whole process would, IMO, make reinstallation of Windows much, much more geek friendly, more friendly for repair shops (copy all the CDs the person has to the drive, enter their registration codes into a text file in the root 'software-to-install' dir, reboot the system and wait for it to come back up after a dozen or so reboots with a fully functional OS), or even corporations. It'd probably take a healthy chunk out of the reimaging software markets, as well as the 3rd party installation software (Install Shield or what have you), but IMO, it would be worth it if it makes windows somewhat less shitty in the useability dept.

    I've got a Windows machine that I've got to fix this weekend - seemably broken by a virus which is possibly still resident, but none of the virus scanning packages are able to find it. Copy/paste doesn't work, a lot of control panel applets don't work, etc. I don't relish having to do each item independently.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:interesting cultural differences by bmantz65 · · Score: 1

      The whole process, from the insertion of the Windows disk into the drive, to the "fuck, I'm finally done. I need (another) drink," took nearly 4 hours due to having to constantly insert various software disks, continual reboots for software updates and driver finickyness
      I assume you didn't make a backup of the software first? Also, do you have a DVD burner? Could've copied down your Program Files or related to save you the hassle.

    2. Re:interesting cultural differences by dabraun · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding - copy program files? And you think any of those programs are going to work without their registry keys? Ok, back up the registry ... and you will have defeated the whole point of reinstalling since you just brought all the old install's problems with you.

    3. Re:interesting cultural differences by dabraun · · Score: 1

      But you are trolling. You've started off with the premise that installing a service pack somehow requires reinstalling apps and reapplying your settings - and it doesn't.

      Not only is it reasonable to install a service pack without flattening the box - for most people it's the only choice they have since most people do not have access to the slipstream builds (everything built together for a fresh install.)

  136. It's gone what? by FraggedSquid · · Score: 1

    It think you mean Iron Pyrite

    --
    You don't need a lab to make mud.
  137. Exploration or exploitation? by bender647 · · Score: 1

    A package of stories, complete with an exploration of the new update, is here.
    I naturally read, "exploitation" of the new update...

    1. Re:Exploration or exploitation? by DesertJester · · Score: 1

      i read the same line and did a double take, while thinking "Didn't this just come out?"

      --
      Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
  138. Re:So - you should have used the beta's to test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have had a long time to use beta versions of the SP2 to find out about any incompabilities. For example the new application firewall, AMD64 instruction protection and much more.

  139. Re: your .sig by EchoMirage · · Score: 1

    You've an MS in organic chemistry but you work as an Information Systems Coordinator? You must be an awesome chemist. You're a sad fuck man.

    Pot meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

    Speaking of things that are black, you're on the blacklist now.

  140. This isn't society at large you're talking about.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ordinarily you're talking about a corporation. It's nothing like saying "Hey, you have the freedom to hack your iPod if you want."

    If you let a corporate user be "on his own" and the company loses money because that user screws up, you haven't done your job. It doesn't matter that the user said he wouldn't bother you about it.

  141. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I agree that the fact that you cannot resume downloads from windows update is a huge annoyance which diminishes the value of the service pack for the modem user. It's worth noting that occasionally microsoft rolls a service pack into an OS and sells it as the new "service release"... I would hope that they'd start selling xp with sp2 integrated to help people who buy xp new who are still on modems. won't help you but at least it shows an awareness of the situation.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  142. Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    I like to think that he got it, and was agreeing with you.

    Of couse, I like to think a lot of things; doesn't make any of them so...

  143. download urls here (rate: informative) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://134.129.142.12/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.e xe


    http://134.129.142.12/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU .e xe

    winxp english servicepack 2
    ed2k://|file|WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe|278927 592|5AED2232C451F2308164D9440E7FDCDE|/

    ed2k://|file|WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-DEU.exe|277936 872|BD40F5B9459C1E9DB3D9AE65E76DC8B1|/

    have fun and beware of the extra slashdot spaces in long lines / urls....

  144. You made a mistake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Price for a laptop? $1500.00
    Price for Win XP Pro? $299.99
    Price for SP2? Free

    Removing Windows XP, installing Linux instead, after SP2 renders the computer unusable? Priceless

  145. Hmph by bmetz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Put SP2 on two machines
    on one of my laptops, it worked fine. Done.

    On my desktop, I can no longer see the contents of my second NTFS drive. Uninstalling SP2 leaves me still unable to see it.

    Ugh, and it seemed like a decent upgrade besides that.

    --
    What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
    1. Re:Hmph by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 1

      Right-click My Computer, hit Manage. Choose "Disk Managment" from the pane on the left, select your second drive partition. Right-click, and use the change/add drive letter.

      Tada.

  146. Anyone tested with AMD64? by Jarnis · · Score: 1

    So, anyone tried this with an AMD64 CPU yet?

    How badly does the new NX-feature on AMD64 break everything? I do know that you can exclude programs from the no execute-protection if they refuse to work, but if 90% of apps break until next update, unless I list 'em in some whitelist, I will most likely put off the update by a few weeks.

    It seems to work smoothly on my 2nd computer (P4 2.67Ghz), but that's more like a sandbox with extremely common hardware components and almost no apps beyond web browser and few productivity thingys, so it can be formatted at will anyway. Bit scared of upgrading my main system - Adaptec SCSI controller, A8V Deluxe motherboard with both VIA SATA and Promise SATA controllers, Radeon 9800pro, tons of hard drives... it would be just much more of a pain to recover if, for example, the NX protection feature becomes a huge hassle until developers can fix their broken programs, and restoring my OS partition from backup would take over an hour... I guess I'm lazy :p

  147. "a group of sysadmins"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long ago, those that dwell in the monastary had this discussion. The initial question was posed by Timothy (not Tim damn it) and asked what a group of SysAdmins should be called. The following is the result of that thread.
    A threat of sysadmins
    An annoyance of sysadmins
    A clue of sysadmins
    A misery of sysadmins
    A retaliation of sysadmins
    A crash of sysadmins
    A clue clux clan
    A lynch mob of sysadmins
    An ascention of sysadmins
    A messiah of sysadmins
    A Rage of sysadmins
    An asylum of sysadmins
    A cluster of sysadmins
    A network of sysadmins
    A bastard of SysAdmins
    A pantheon of sysadmins
    A misery of sysadmins
    An anarchy of BOFHs
    A LART of sysadmins
    A barstard of sysadmins
    A drunken horde of sysadmins
    A haste of sysadmins
    A sixpack of sysadmins
    A of sysadmins
    A quorum of sysadmins
    An armeggedon of sysadmins.
    A fear of sysadmins
    A murder of sysadmins
    A mutual loathing of sysadmins
    A genocide of sysadmins
    A panic of SysAdmins
    A revenge of SysAdmins
    A flaying alive of SysAdmins
    A domain of sysadmins with an absence of lusers
    A multitude of the Heavenly host(s)
    A dequeue of sysadmins
    A crack suicide squad of SysAdmins
    "Suicide squad....Attack!"
    "Down, not across, right?"

    A suicide of sysadmins
    A cruelty of sysadmins
    A monastery of sysadmins
    A suffering of sysadmins
    A illegitimacy of sysadmins
    A fsckOff of SysAdmins
    A disturbance of sysadmins
    - because if we are, you will be
    A Zen of SysAdmins
    We are at one with our work. If you disturb our work, our foot will be at one with your ass. Sadly, you won't be at One with anything thereafter. You'll be in lots of little pieces we call Bits, some of which are at One with themselves, and others, which are at Zero with themselves, but none of which will be At One with you.
    An outrage of sysadmins

    Feel free to pick from any of the above.

    -The Anonymous Bastard

  148. Why not continuous, merged service packs? by swb · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they can't do service packs that are continuously merged into one service pack, date-revisioned, for easy download/burning/installing -- in addition to the incremental "hotfix" type updates they release.

    People mostly up to date can do the hotfixes, people far behind could install ONE service pack and get current without downloading 25MB of updates *and* a service pack installation. Sometimes you can be talking 4 or more install, reboot, download, etc cycles just to get current.

  149. Not so bad... by Derf_X · · Score: 1

    It's not so bad. "wget filename" first night, "wget -c filename" second night (I download at night with wget batch files so I don't block the phone line), unless I go to a friend's house who has high speed internet and burn it to a CD. I can't use my USB key, it's 10 MB too big :o(

    1. Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a typical user will be doing that on Windows?

  150. That depends how you use spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When you consider that spyware is essentially viral, it's not so unreasonable.

    Windows SP2 breaks compatibility with virii!

    Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

    I mean, yes, it would be nice if it could pleasantly clean the problem up for you, but you have to acknowledge that this is the fault of the spyware authors. They wrote their software to break Windows, to hide in undocumented places.

    Once you get colon cancer, don't go blaming the chair if your ass is sore.

  151. just run the bloody XP key creator/changer 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gez you can buy XPSP1s in Asian markets where the 1st thing that happens on CD autorun is that a WinXP key creator creats a fresh key to use..

  152. Actually.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's still a good few Netware/Win3.11 networks arround if one bothers to look.

    You can find them in all sorts of weird places, same again for OS2.

    There's plenty of businesses that have found what they think are the perfect apps & don't feel the need to update.

    I know a vet that uses a Sco Unixware setup & vet business program from the 80's

  153. One machine down, two to go... by ndykman · · Score: 1

    Installed it at home (got the CD from MSDN). No worries so far.

    Good things:

    Tools->Internet Options->Programs now has a manage-add ons link. About @#$@#$ time. Shows ActiveX, Toolbars, BHOs, etc.

    Okay things:

    The firewall seems better, but I'm not sure I'll use it over ZoneAlarm right now.

    Funnies:

    In a bit of hilarity, the firewall complained about Windows Messenger trying to use the internet and asked if I should block it...

    Same with the ActiveSync Connection Manager.

    Hmmmmmmm.

  154. MS inadvertentley put XP cd keys in SP2 by jbartone · · Score: 1

    LOL. Open the RTM in Winrar or equiv, and go to either i386/ip/unattended.txt or i386/ic/unattended.txt there's a thread on Neowin about it.

  155. Re:Time to do away with this "Service Pack"... by Pauley_24 · · Score: 1

    They probably will bundle it. If you buy XP in stores right now, it has SP1 already installed out of the box.

    -- Pauley