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

Holy Crap!

[z0ink]

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

Re:Holy Crap!

[JPriest]

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

Re:Holy Crap!

[NineNine]

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.

Re:Holy Crap!

[jrockway]

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

Re:Holy Crap!

[Ckwop]

Your hash sir: 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

Simon.

Go back to green

[setzman]

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/06/2 015257&tid=201&tid=128

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:Go back to green

[Frizzle Fry]

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).

Re:Go back to green

[Shinglor]

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.

Re:Go back to green

[drinkypoo]

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.

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?

In other news

[sparcnut]

Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures.

Re:In other news

[Orgazmus]

Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?

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

Re:In other news

[ChairmanMeow]

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

So

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

Re:So

[wfberg]

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.

Re:So

[LurkerXXX]

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

Re:So

[hazem]

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!

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

[typhoonius]

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).

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.

So

[allio]

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

So who pays,

[DoraLives]

if this dog eats your homework?

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.

Re:Is it really golden?

[geekoid]

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

Re:Is it really golden?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Fedora did?

Re:Is it really golden?

[the_bard17]

...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...

Re:Is it really golden?

[shadowmatter]

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

You new here?

- sm

Michael's Admission

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Michael's Admission

[ejaw5]

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.

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

Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered

[RonnyJ]

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

Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered

[Schmucky The Cat]

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.

Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered

[prockcore]

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!

Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Windows Beta site getting hammered

[cortana]

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. ;)

What about Win2K SP5?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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

[Tony Hoyle]

..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).

Re:Hmmm

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Tony Hoyle]

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....

Re:Hmmm

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

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

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[ironygranny]

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).

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:Hmmm

[bitty]

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.

Re:Time to do away with this “Service Pack&am

[dedazo]

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.

What will SP2 do for Linux's server dominence?

[mind21_98]

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.

Erm..

[sinner0423]

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?

Torrent Links

[calebb]

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

Parent post is accurate.

[TiggertheMad]

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.

Torrents---which one is "right" ??

[NeoSkandranon]

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

Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ??

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Torrents---which one is "right" ??

[WillDraven]

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.

Caramba !

[apankrat]

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.

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?

MD5 checksum for SP2

[thalakan]

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

More importantly: any news yet on NT4 sp7 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

RC2

[dfj225]

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).

I waiting for..

[zulux]

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

(kidding)

Meh...

[Hosehead17]

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?

Trickle-down downloads

[SilentChris]

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.

Hmmm...

[rtilghman]

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

MD5 Sum from WinBeta

[Airw0lf]

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

WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

Here's how they are going to do it

[WhoDaresWins]

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.

**Congratulations to our 1,000,000,000 visitor!**

[BlueJay465]

Microsoft has been slashdotted.

I'm going to DISNEYLAND!!

The Firewall

[hawaiian717]

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

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.

yea

[mnemonic_]

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

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.

Well, to be sure...

[halivar]

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?

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

Forget Gold

[superpulpsicle]

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 .. ..

Re:Forget Gold

[farmhick]

I see you have gold and blue in there. But you forgot about the final one...

They've gone plaid.

Everybody is talking about it ....

[Akimotos]

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?

Lots of errors

[Pan T. Hose]

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.

Hmph

[bmetz]

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.