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."

Comments

Is it really golden?

[rpbailey1642]

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.

Time to do away with this “Service Pack”

[VidEdit]

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.

Windows Beta site getting hammered

[Zerbey]

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

Hmmm

[Lisandro]

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...

Re:Hmmm

[bob65]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[virtual_mps]

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.

Re:So

[0racle]

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.

Oh sure

[geek]

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

Re:Oh sure

[SilentChris]

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).

Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack

[DaHat]

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

Re:So

[LurkerXXX]

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

Re:Go back to green

[Frizzle Fry]

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.

Re:So

[LurkerXXX]

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.

Re:So

[hazem]

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.

Re:So

[roror]

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

Install Server 2003.

[Ayanami Rei]

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.

Re:Go back to green

[jrockway]

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?

If MS can, so can Slashdot

[scruffy]

If Microsoft can release this service pack, then surely there is hope that /. can change this horrid color scheme.

If RTW is Monday, why is this such a huge deal?

[Aslan72]

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

Re:The Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

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.