Windows XP SP2 In Release

mr_tommy writes "Service Pack 2 for Windows XP has been released to manufacturers (RTM), is available to MSDN customers, and will soon be available to all via Windows Update and Microsoft sites. At ~ 250 megs, the download is big, and Microsoft will be offering the option of getting it on CDs. The much awaited Service Pack comes with many security updates (new NX and DEP protection), extra features (firewall, security center), and improvements for Windows. New versions of IE and OE come with the release, as well as improvements in the wireless networking field. So far, the service pack seems to be very stable (no known major issues) and does seem to speed up most systems. A review of SP2 Final with some limited download links is available at Neowin.net. I'd urge all users (pirate users too) to deploy the service pack and benefit from the genuine effort Microsoft have made with regards to security in this release." We did cover this recently but since this is a major deal, we figured people would want to know more.

Comments

SP2

[Klar]

Even as a person who owns a legal copy of XP Pro, I am pleased that SP2 will be able to be installed on almost all copies of XP that are around. Hopefully this will help slow spyware and other annoyances down!

Also, I've heard that the download is available from the new windows update site: here and several bit torrent websites(file name: WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe, MD5: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7, size: 278,927,592 bytes)

Re:SP2

[tgrigsby]

WHOA -- I have to be honest with you, I'm not going to trust an update of my operating system to something I drag off a BitTorrent site. Perhaps someone can alleviate the apprehension -- what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?

Personally, I'm cautious enough that I'd rather download it directly from Microsoft than try to gain some perceived savings in downloading it from a 3rd party site.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

first of all that would be extremely difficult in the short ammount of time since release.

second of all, MD5.
(i would assume MS would have it posted on there site)

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

man you can't have a backdoor cause it comes from Microsoft!

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

"and several bit torrent websites"

It would be appreciated if someone posted some of those bittorrent site links, for the "non-parinoid"

Re:SP2

[scupper]

Also, I've heard that the download is available from the new windows update site: here

Not yet.

Re:SP2

[schon]

I'm not going to trust an update of my operating system to something I drag off a BitTorrent site.

I infer from this that you'd trust any other download from BT? Why?

what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?

About the same that some jerkweed is going to attach a backdoor to any other torrent you download.

Re:SP2

[Datasage]

Beta testers also have access to the final build. Thats most likely the version thats on the being distributed on the bit torrent networks.

If your concered about the about someone planting an trojan disguesed as sp2, the checksum is 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7 *WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

Re:SP2

[Zone-MR]

Firstly, there were MD5 checksums posted on Neowin, and verified by a lot of people with access to the official release via the windows beta site. Unless a heck of a lot of people are in on the conspiracy, it's safe to assume the MD5 hashes are in fact valid.

Secondly, all official Microsoft updates, including service pack 2 are digitally signed by Micrsoft to prevent tampering.

My advice: Grow a little, do some research before you post, and take off your tin-foil hat. It looks incredibly silly.

Re:SP2

[Dahan]

I haven't downloaded that file, but doesn't MS always digitally sign their updates? If so, you could right-click on the EXE, select Properties, then go to the "Digital Signatures" tab to check the signature.

Re:SP2

[iabervon]

I'd hope it's signed with a key you already have from Microsoft, and has an MD5 sum that Microsoft has published on their site. If so, you can be pretty certain that you're getting the same thing that they put out. Considering that your connection to microsoft.com is going over a similarly untrusted network, you should be using similarly paranoid checks on that.

Re:SP2

[rokzy]

doesn't the file name WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe suggest this is NOT final? I'm not so familiar with MS naming but this sounds more like a "hotfix" than a final SP e.g. the simpler name O2kSp3.exe for Office 2000.

Re:SP2

[j4ck50n]

This was modded to "insightful"?

Hmm, ok, make an ignorant knee-jerk statement and completely ignore the fact MD5 hash was posted with the info AND the fact that MS often provides the backdoor themselves(unintentionally of course)...and get "insightful"???

This, is a perfect example of idiotic moderation.

Re:SP2

[nolife]

And how is this any different from downloading your newest Linux distro ISO? I would not call your concern insightful, I'd call it pure FUD. As with any download, compare and verify the hash before you use it, if a known good hash is not available, take your chances.

Some MD5 verification apps for W32.
Here
Here
Here.
There are others.

Re:SP2

[tehcyder]

take off your tin-foil hat

Yeah, well look at the sig, maybe he really needs one:-

"You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me"

Re:SP2

[silicon not in the v]

If your concered about the about someone planting an trojan disguesed as sp2, the checksum is 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7 *WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

Really? Then maybe I got a bad file. My checksum says
599go6t2ch0a56s4u1ck76e82r5!1337

Re:SP2

[cyxxon]

Anyone that knows the md5 hash for the German version? Filename seems to be WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-DEU.exe as I found it on the net (via FileMirrors), but my educated guess would be it will have another hash...

Re:SP2

[Martin Blank]

Does Microsoft post MD5 sums? I know that their they use PGP when sending out security bulletins, which I thought was a major step for them to use an outside product like that, but I don't think I've seen MD5 sums from them. They prefer to use Authenticode, IIRC.

Re:SP2

[Elminst]

No that's pretty standard naming convention for all of their patches since XP came out.
Name of program-knowledgebase article#- version (if applicable-language (ENU= english)

The KB# listed corresponds to the SP2 release notes article.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; [LN];835935

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info, but I would preferr to run up Microsofts bandwidth bill. In fact I will be making separate downloads for each of my windows boxes but that is just becasue it is more convienent for me.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

a) most BT downloads are not executables

b) of the executable BT downloads, most are things like Linux ISOs, where the originator publishes Md5 checksums on their own website.

Re:SP2

[Bachus9000]

In this case I do believe you're wrong. SP1 had a similar naming scheme, IIRC, as did Windows 2000 SP4 (again, IIRC).

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this any different from downloading your newest Linux distro ISO?

Linux distributions typically publish MD5 checksums themselves - thus no need to trust a third party.

if a known good hash is not available, take your chances.

That is precisely the point.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

My advice: Grow a little, do some research before you post, and take off your tin-foil hat. It looks incredibly silly.

Woah! You only think that because you made the mistake of taking your tin-foil hat off.

Your mind is theirs now.

Re:SP2

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Hey, I think the Microsoft basher crowd needs to give it up to Microsoft for allowing this update without checking for pirated copies. As a business decision... hmmm.. it's interesting. It would be trivial to have a list of "bad" corporate keys like they did for sp1. But I guess they have decided the bad press from secuirty is worth a few pirated copies. Anyway, I too, think it is a good decision.

Re:SP2

[jenesais]

Why bother with files-from-who-knows-where.

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 Network Installation Package for IT Professionals and Developers directly from MS Technet: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en/

Re:SP2

[sjvn]

SP2 is NOT available from the

http://v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

site at this time. The only thing you'll get there is the new version of Windows update.

You can get SP2 from various download Web sites as noted elsewhere in this thread.

Be aware though that it's 1) Huge and 2) The sites appear to be swamped (Aug. 9, 1 PM Eastern) and 3) SP2 comes with some compatibility problems. For example, Microsoft's own CRM program and the current editions of most Norton A/V progrms need tweaking to work with SP2. There's likely to be others. See:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1624998,00. as p

for some of the reasons why.

Steven

Re:SP2

[BoomN]

SP2 has just recently been made available as an official download from Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&Displa yLang=en/

Re:SP2

[gosand]

I infer from this that you'd trust any other download from BT? Why?

I don't agree with the original tinfoil-hatter's reasons, but consider this: If I host a BT link to the patch, I can put a dummy 250MB file in its place. If someone tries to download it, I know that they have an unpatched version of XP. And now I have their IP address, and I know it will take them a while to get the official patch.

Granted, it isn't like you are giving them Admin password or anything, but it is information.

Re:SP2

[nolife]

Who's point, the author of the parent I replied to or other messages in this thread? The parent of my reply mentioned NOTHING about any checksums what-so-ever. It was a generic statement implying that because something came from a P2P app, there was no way to verify that it was real and not tampered with. That is pure FUD. If that authors point was about the lack of an official MD5 sum, that should have been mentioned.

Perhaps someone can alleviate the apprehension -- what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?

I and others mentioned that it is possible to verify that something on a P2P network was not tampered with. Exactly what the person asked for. Somehow you turned this into question that the author did not even remotely ask.

Re:SP2

[RonnyJ]

Heres an official Microsoft link to SP2 final:

Windows XP SP2 - more details about the file here

Interestingly, it's 272.4mb, not 266.01mb as the 'leaked' release was...

Re:SP2

[RonnyJ]

Interestingly, it's 272.4mb, not 266.01mb as the 'leaked' release was...

Maybe not, IE says it's 266mb - but Firefox is reporting it as 272.4mb when I try to dl it with that, strange.

Re:SP2

[whitelabrat]

I've confirmed the MD5 myself and it's good. For the more cautious out there the file can be found on microsoft's web site with much digging.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

278,927,592 bytes/1024000=272.39mb

Re:SP2

[lart2150]

i'm still downloading this version so I don't know if it's the final or not but it's bigger then the one that winbeta released(that's the one on bittorrent) http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935 -SP2-ENU.exe

Re:SP2

[aiyo]

All you needed to make a pirate copy look legit was a 640 PID. You can obtain one with the newer keygenerators that have been released and change your windows key without reinstalling. It seriously takes less than a minute. I had done this last week in anticipation of sp2.

Re:SP2

[Martin Blank]

272391 KB / 1024 KB/MB = 266.01MB

Learn some math.

Re:SP2

[zonker]

hmm... ibm disagrees with the "no known major issues" and says there are some issues with incompatibilities between sp2 and some of their business software... read here.

Re:SP2

[voisine]

I know that if I were the government, and I could read people's thoughts if they weren't wearing a tinfoil hat, the first thing I'd do is launch a massive campaign to make the idea of wearing a tinfoil hat synonymous with insane paranoia.

Re:SP2

[ncc74656]

WHOA -- I have to be honest with you, I'm not going to trust an update of my operating system to something I drag off a BitTorrent site. Perhaps someone can alleviate the apprehension -- what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?

FWIW, I just had my parents' computer (they're out of town, so I can't just head over after work with a CD) download SP2 directly from Microsoft after having downloaded it from BitTorrent at work. The MD5 sums match: 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7 on both, with a length of 278927592 bytes each. Looks like the BitTorrent distribution is safe as long as you get this sum (plus you can bring up the file's properties and use Authenticode to verify it).

Re:SP2

[RonnyJ]

Firefox claims SP2 is 272.4mb, obviously it assumes 1000kb = 1meg. If someone is bad at math, it's not me.

Re:SP2

[dspasovski]

Whole Linux distros are dragged from the net via BitTorrent - we're talking about OS + apps here, not just a patch for the OS.

So, what makes XP SP2 different from the majority of Linux .iso images distributed via BitTorrent?

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct this is a Firefox "bug", its 266.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

I downloaded it from microsoft. The servers are fast right now. If you don't want to wait:
just go to the the Microsoft homepage and choose, "Learn more about Windows XP Sp2."
Then choose, " Information for Developers on MSDN."
Then under Downloads, choose, "Windows Service Pack 2," the middle one. then download it.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

It has a .exe extension which are full of viruses...

Everyone knows this!

Re:SP2

[GreenHell]

I'll try not to open up the entire "1000 or 1024" can of worms, but I'll just say the following:

Firefox deals with network stuff. In network terms (speed, packet size, etc) megabytes, kilobytes and what not have always been powers of 10.

Re:SP2

[Qwavel]

wxChecksums at SourceForge
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wxche cksums/

It is available for Windows and for Linux (Gnome)

I just used it to verify the MD5 of my XP SP2. It is quite nice.

Re:SP2

[Tack]

KiB versus KB. 278927592 bytes = 272390.23 KiB = 278927.59 KB = 266.01 MiB = 278.93 MB.

This is where things are going. You might as well get used to it now.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do a search for KB835935 in the MS knowledge base, it refers to articles on installing SP2, issues, etc., and doesn't refer to it in any way as beta. Sounds like the real deal.

Re:SP2

[Carnildo]

So, what makes XP SP2 different from the majority of Linux .iso images distributed via BitTorrent?

You can go to the distro's download site to find out the MD5 checksum?

Re:SP2

[Martin Blank]

No, that's where a handful of elitists are going. That "mebi/kibi" crap needs to go back to the hell that spawned it, and proves that engineers (apparently especially those that make up the IEC's governing body) should not be making up words, especially words like "exbibytes." Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

At best, you're being pedantic with this in attempting to defend the initial point. At worst, you're just trolling.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Mega and Kilo have already been defined. If you want to use powers of 2, you have to use different units.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. The file size is different because this isn't the same SP2 that most people should download. This is a program network administrators should use to install SP2 on multiple computers.

From your "details about the file" link: "DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update."

Re:SP2

[Tack]

At best, you're being pedantic with this in attempting to defend the initial point. At worst, you're just trolling.

This is pretty much the de facto response by people who can't defend their position. "If you don't agree with me, then you're either an idiot, or you're being an asshole."

Metric prefixes were defined long before computers came around. The binary prefixes aren't the greatest solution, but at least it's something. Perhaps they used to be used only by a handful of elitists, but they're beginning to gain favor now in places that might surprise you.

I suppose you could call Alan Cox an elitist, but I think he's being a realist.

Jason.

Re:SP2

[Frizzle Fry]

This seems to be pretty much a minimal name. It has the product (win xp), which service pack it is (sp2), the languague (enu) and the # for the kb article.
A short name like o2ksp3 doesn't include, for example, the language, which is significant since the English sp2 is different than the German one (for example).

Re:SP2

[FlutterVertigo(gmail]

downloaded from Microsoft There's a statement saying you shouldn't D/L it for a single machine because there will be a smaller single-machine D/L soon; if it's longer than you can hold your breath, it's not soon! The actual size, as indicated on that page is 272'391M - and I can verify it because of what's on my HD.

Suck Factor #10: You can usually run a self-extracting .exe to unpack it to a desired directory, then decide whether to run the setup or burn an unpacked version to CD so you don't have to unpack it every time. This is not so with SP2. It unpacks it, then wants to start applying itself. If you try to time your kill, you might make it, but it works awfully hard to waste those unpacked files. I noticed the unpacked size (for the entire package) is ~333M

Re:SP2

[Martin Blank]

Yes, I can call him an elitist. And if Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, or Bill Gates wants to use it, I'll call them elitist, too.

It's confusing enough for most users to deal with the billion-bytes vs. GB issue on hard drives without introducing yet another measurement system, not to mention one that is in some cases difficult to pronounce and in the most common cases just sounds stupid and invites ridicule.

For decades, it was understood that a kilobyte was 1024 bytes, with kilo having a slightly different meaning in the computing industry than elsewhere. "Gauge" as a measurement system still in common use around the world has different meanings depending on its application (wires based on the size of the hole from which they were drawn, shotguns based on the number of lead balls of the barrel's inside diameter were required to make up a pound, railways based on the distance between rails, steel the thickness of sheeting [borrowed, apparently, from wire gauge], and the amount of Plaster of Paris used in mixes to change dry rates). There's no reason, aside from a need to prove oneself to be "above" the common user, to make this kind of inane change.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]For decades, it was understood that a kilobyte was 1024 bytes, with kilo having a slightly different meaning in the computing industry than elsewhere. [...]

Unless of course you were doing networking, in which case the prefixes had the same meaning as everywhere else. Saying it had the same meaning through all of the computing industry simply isn't true.

Unless, of course, you really thought that your network card had a maximum transfer rate of 104 857 600 bits per second.

Re:SP2

[(void*)]

Sorry, but the argument of Tack deserves some merit.
It is true that for decades "kilo" meant 1024, but NIST has come out with a solution, and it is the only REAL solution so far. Whatever you can say about NIST, it is they who get standards in industry and government. So let's go with them, and perhaps in a hundred years, nobody will ever remember this temporary insanity which confused 1000 with 1024.

Re:SP2

[0mni]

This is the link for the network SP2 install, not the normal one, it tells you to wait for the normal one if your not on a network as it is a smaller file.

Re:SP2

[ezzzD55J]

"Firefox deals with network stuff. In network terms (speed, packet size, etc) megabytes, kilobytes and what not have always been powers of 10."

This isn't sensible reasoning. It's true that in the network world, sizes and speeds have always been powers of 10, but that works on network level 2 only, when we're just talking bits, not bytes. On the application layer, as HTTP is, when we're talking bytes, then we're talking powers of 2, not of 10. As always.

Re:SP2

[Anonymous Coward]

>I know that they have an unpatched version of XP

So did everyone else before today!

Re:SP2

[LinuxTek]

Well, I'm downloading it on firefox, and the status message says 'xx.x of 272.4 MB at...' so either firefox has a bug (dividing it by 1000 instead of 1024) or there's something fishy going here.

Re:SP2

[funkspiel]

Is there something I should know about tin-foil hats?

Re:SP2

[cygnusx]

Yes, they use Authenticode to digitally sign their EXEs (this creates a "Digital Signatures" tab in the File Properties dialog, which you can use to verify . The problem is, it is (non-trivially) possible to spoof this dialog with one of your own (Windows apps can and do add their own property sheets). And of course, it's impossible to verify these files on non-Windows systems.

IMO they should posting MD5 or SHA1 hashes. Any MS employees reading this, please ask the Microsoft.com folk to include hash information!

Re:SP2

[Martin Blank]

Checking some things last night, I found that, at least in their certificates, they seem to favor SHA1 hashes. The certificates I saw were ultimately verified by Verisign, which used an MD5 hash in the parent certificate.

Re:SP2

[DerWulf]

before they didn't have an IP that is likely to stay used by the same host for a couple of hours where it was certain that the user was running XP.

Re:SP2

[tgrigsby]

(me): what are the odds that some jerkweed is going to attach backdoor warez to that download?

(schon): About the same that some jerkweed is going to attach a backdoor to any other torrent you download.

Exactly. And I don't. Download software, that is. Unless it's from the vendor, which in this case would be MS.

BitTorrent?

[Robotech_Master]

Has anyone snagged this yet and put it up on BitTorrent somewhere? The best download rate I can get off the links is around 15K/sec...meaning it'll be about five hours before it finishes.

Re:BitTorrent?

[Izago909]

Yea. Try this post that was made in the original article:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117069&cid= 9905241

Re:BitTorrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's floating around on IRC everywhere.. best place I'd suggest is on the winbeta network.

Re:BitTorrent?

[afidel]

Uh, SP2 wasn't RTM'd until yesterday so there is no way of knowing if that is the final code or not. I don't think I would be using anything but a copy with the same MD5 as the file from MSDN.

Re:BitTorrent?

[Hiro2k]

It was released on our private forums about 3 days ago. I waited for most of them to test it out to see it was bogous or not.

It wasn't :D

Re:BitTorrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, those torrent links are useless. The tracker can't be contacted. And most of them are folders full of individual files that have to be rejoined using WinRAR or something after downloading. What a stupid PAIN. I wasn't looking for a million little files, I was looking for ONE file. (Sheesh, who felt the need to split up the .EXE in the first place? It's not like it was going to be stored on floppies.) So I'll repeat: Useless, and Stupid. Any REAL torrent links out there, with actual working tracker and seeders to the SP2 file (a single file, no RAR-or-other-split folders full of files)?

Re:BitTorrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should just wait for it to be on Windows Update if you are having that much trouble...

Re:BitTorrent?

[MindStalker]

Of course the problem is how can I trust all the slashdotters to tell me the MD5 if its not posted on microsofts site. Well atleast I can't find it. Anyone out there with a microsoft link to a MD5 I can verify.

Re:BitTorrent?

[Izago909]

I installed it on a copy of XP running inside VMWare. It's been running constantly all weekend and no suspicious activity yet.

Re:BitTorrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the QuakeIRC network...

Makes sense

[Yeechang Lee]

Now I know why my computer just exploded in "The Simpsons"-style flames.

odd or even

[wawannem]

Is it odd or even service packs that usually cause problems?

Re:odd or even

[TopShelf]

Well, it's the odd-numbered Star Trek movies that suck, if that helps...

Re:odd or even

[danknight]

no, Usually they all cause problems to some extent,

Re:odd or even

[donbrock]

> Is it odd or even service packs that usually cause problems?

This is Windows we're talking about. Always expect problems.

Re:odd or even

[Short Circuit]

It's dod.

Odd, even.

Re:odd or even

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean unlike Linux?!?!?

WTF are you smoking?

Re:odd or even

[Anonymous Coward]

The even ones even cause odd problems. Odd that..

Release date?

[routerwhore]

I have been looking, but still cannot determine what the release date is. It is pretty cool that they already have 802.11i working. This really appears to be a quality update, especially for wireless.

Install it now

[Tod DeBie]

Install it now! Say what you will about MS, but this looks like a good improvement. Maybe I'll wait untill you all install it first...

RTM?

[boomgopher]

Ahem, it's Released To Fucking Manufacturers (RTFM), thank you.

Re:RTM?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for Services For Unix to be Released To Fucking Manufacturers. Then we'll have:

SFU RTFM

Re:RTM?

[Lisandro]

And i thought i was the only one who readed it like that...

250MB!?!?

[afidel]

Holly cow, that's bigger than ALL of windows 98! I know there are a TON of improvements in SP2 but the size is kind of crazy, I guess SUS would have been a good idea even at small clients =)

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well remember that they do not provide 'changes only' -- e.g. if they change one line in a DLL they have to provide the entire DLL. Given the breadth of fixes it's not unsurprising that many files will be replaced.

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, even if the actual changes are relatively small, Microsoft distributes updates as whole binary files. So if you make a tiny change to each of a hundred DLLs, you'll have a big service pack.

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Win98? Hah, it's even bigger than Win2K! Yup, that's right, if you take the \i386 folder and cut out \lang (exotic languages that take up 64MB) and the \win9xmig, \win9xupg and \winntupg folders (can't upgrade older versions, only clean install), the otherwise complete Win2K + slipstreamed SP4 only take about 201MB.

Re:250MB!?!?

[spectecjr]

Holly cow, that's bigger than ALL of windows 98! I know there are a TON of improvements in SP2 but the size is kind of crazy

That's the administrative install version that covers everything - including Windows Media Center edition, Windows Tablet PC Edition, etc. If you download the client version, it'll only download the files you need.

Re:250MB!?!?

[JimmyG13]

SP2 also includes SP1, hence the large size.

Re:250MB!?!?

[x0n]

This is a common misconception. SP2 is not big because "of all the fixes", but rather because XP's core has been recompiled with VC 2005 compilers to provide the latest optimizations (as well as a software equivalent of NX) among other things, hence you're downloading pretty much ALL of XP's core, with fixes/changes to only some of it. SP1 and previous were compiled with VC6 I believe.

- Oisin

Re:250MB!?!?

[Waffle Iron]

That's bad, but my SuSE 9.1 currently has 300MB of update RPMs in its cache folder, and it's only been 4 months since release. (Actually, subtracting out multiple updates on the same package and kernel sources, that leaves only about 90MB of "essential" updates. It's still pretty ridiculous, though.)

All of this seems very inefficient to me, given that most of the time a patch fixes just a few lines of mistaken code. Maybe they should add something like a "#pragma patch" to gcc around code fix lines. It would generate the exact original binary, tack the patched code onto the end of the binary and insert a jump instead of the original code. Then most updates could be put out in a few KB of binary diffs.

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

This service pack is huge, because there is a lot of churn in the binaries.

A lot of the OS was recompiled with the latest version of the compiler which has support for detecting many stack based buffer overruns.

Re:250MB!?!?

[AlphaSys]

What are you guys smokin? My download from MSDN says:

File
en_winxp_sp2.iso, ISO-9660 CD Image
Size
475.35 MB

My favorite part?

Minimum Estimated Download Times
T1 42 minutes
128 KB 8 hours, 39 minutes
64 KB 19 hours, 29 minutes
28.8 KB 43 hours, 18 minutes

Re:250MB!?!?

[PPGMD]

The download times aren't that bad, it should only take me about an hour to get from MSDN.

Though that isn't as good some Linux downloads I got with Getright (on the 145Mb, DS3+100Mb Cogent connection when I worked at a hosting company). Downloaded an entire Linux ISO in 5 minutes, I wish I had that connection at home, or at my current employer.

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this is wrong. The VC 2005 compiler is still in beta (Beta 1, in fact). I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be real smart to use it for an OS build. Sounds like you are making stuff up, or you are just a complete ignorant jackass like everybody else on this idiotic blog.

Re:250MB!?!?

[Mephie]

they do not provide 'changes only'

Yes they do. As of this release/Windows Update 5, in fact. The size, as is pointed out a few posts down, is cos this is the administrative edition which contains everything. You won't need everything unless you're running a vanilla XP install that hasn't had SP 1 or a single hotfix installed.

Re:250MB!?!?

[x0n]

Well, Mr. AC,

I'm not in the habit of making things up -- except perhaps this -- but an excerpt from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxp pro/maintain/sp2chngs.mspx:

Memory protection.
Some attacks by malicious software leverage software security vulnerabilities that allow too much data to be copied into areas of the computer's memory. These vulnerabilities are typically referred to as buffer overruns. Although no single technique can completely eliminate this type of vulnerability, Microsoft is employing a number of security technologies to mitigate these attacks from different angles. First, core Windows components have been recompiled with the most recent version of our compiler technology , which provides added protection against buffer overruns.

-Oisin

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know everyone's been enthusiatic about all the improvements in SP2 - but what about the DRM 'improvements'? No one seems to care about what MS has beefed-up in this area. I'm all for the Firewall/Security/Updates fixes - but I'm not too thrilled in what's sliding-in uder the radar for DRM. Doea anyone know any specifics on wahts's been done 'for our own good' (read: for the improvement of the bottom-line of 'The Man') in DRM?

Re:250MB!?!?

[toddestan]

Holly cow, that's bigger than ALL of windows 98! I know there are a TON of improvements in SP2 but the size is kind of crazy, I guess SUS would have been a good idea even at small clients =)

That's it! SP2 is just a full install of Windows 98SE attached to a small program that silently deletes XP and installs 98SE in it's place. I guess it really is more secure!

Re:250MB!?!?

[Glowing Fish]

# apt-get upgrade

The following packages will be installed:

foo, libfoo, xfoo etc

Need to get 107/109 MB Archives. After unpacking, 58.3 MB will be used.

Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

So as you can see, that is only double what updating Debian would take.

Re:250MB!?!?

[dcstimm]

how many applications is suse 9.1 bundled with? TONS how many applications is windows xp bundled with? NONE

Re:250MB!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, now there's a name I haven't seen in ages. Come back to push your Microsoft trolls on us again, spectecjr?

Re:250MB!?!?

[spectecjr]

Wow, now there's a name I haven't seen in ages. Come back to push your Microsoft trolls on us again, spectecjr?

1. Point out where I was trolling above, loser boy.

2. I never went anywhere. Apparently you're about as observant as a very myopic slug.

3. Funny how you're posting anonymously, isn't it? Anyone would think that you don't have the courage of your convictions.

4. You're a dick.

Re:250MB!?!?

[CarrionBird]

Incorrect.

Pirate users click here!

[garcia]

Use this link for the pirates info. No sense in linking to a forum that just links to another.

Daddypants agrees.

Re:Pirate users click here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hats off to Microsoft for releasing this to the pirates as well.

As stated in longhorn blogs, many aspects of longhorn were piped into this release. The blog entries are interesting that microsoft stopped everything due to the mass amounts of worm damage... and really focused on getting the release done right and quickly.

Who cares if you are a *nix or Microsoft guy... we all are going to have less pain thanks to this decision.

Davak

Re:Pirate users click here!

[Anonymous Coward]

sp2 will break your crack. after the rebbot my little activation keys popped up.

Re: Pirate users click here!

[nerd256]

"We want to make sure that the broadest number of people can install SP2." In regards to allowing pirated copies install SP2.

Oh, I'm sure our friends in Redmond are feeling a stroke of gratitude. Let's see what happens when those pirate users have to install the bug fixes. Save the hassle and switch to Lunix.

Re:Pirate users click here!

[psyclone]

What? It seems to me that anyone who cannot install SP1 cannot install SP2. Are all the cracked machines able to install SP1?

From parent's link:

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.

I believe Gary Schare is saying the "broadest number of people [who] can install SP2" are valid users and "pirates [who] have moved on to other keys which we are not blocking." So.. Are some non-purchased keys (that work with SP1 and updates) not blocked? If not, this means the [many?] non-purchased copies of XP will still be less secure.

Re:Pirate users click here!

[athakur999]

So does Windows Update, automatic updates, etc. still work after installing SP2 using a pirate key? I've read a few reports with the SP2 betas that they could install SP2 fine, but afterwards if they went to Windows Update it wouldn't let them install any further updates.

Re:Pirate users click here!

[Anonymous Coward]

It says the technology will be available that's in SP2, god knows what that means. For all we know they will release the patches individually and more of a hassle to install. The ~250MB SP probably contains numerous patches and installing these individually I can see as a hit or miss.

Re:Pirate users click here!

[Anonymous Coward]

so rerun Winbeta's Reset, or is that no longer working either?

sitting

[ryanw]

I'll be letting that one sit for about 6 months before I touch it...

Re:sitting

[garcia]

So will just about everyone else who has auto-updates disabled. Many people will never install this patch. Even if they do spend the time to install it they will likely have issues out the ass.

It yells at you if you don't have virus protection enabled. It asks if you want to run your own Firewall but its is enabled by default. If you have both running it could cause you problems.

I don't particularly care for the pop-up blocker and I can't imagine that most users will care for it either.

This is going to be a big hassle for people who don't know what they are doing and it's likely going to be a big hassle for everyone else too.

Re:sitting

[wintermind]

While I see your point, I almost feel for Microsoft on this: no matter what they do, people are going to complain. I use Linux on my boxes, but I also have to feed and care for my wife's XP Home edition system. I will install the Service Pack and I will no doubt curse at it for a bit, but I am glad that MS is taking such a hard-nosed approach to security now. Better that than the alternative.

Re:sitting

[danheskett]

Actually, I doubt you will have ANY trouble with this service pack. The big-backend changes are basically transparent to the end-user. You can uninstall any crappy ad-blocking software you may have. You can uninstall any crappy free firewalls that you may have. You can uninstall any crappy anti-IE-malware apps you may have.

It's a godsend, and it works pretty well.

Re:sitting

[x0n]

It yells at you if you don't have virus protection enabled. It asks if you want to run your own Firewall but its is enabled by default. If you have both running it could cause you problems.

What an utterly pointless comment. It doesn't "yell" at you for not having antivirus software, it announces, and quite rightly too. Who the hell else is going to yell at the countless morons who unknowingly infect their machines by clicking on every EXE that arrives and are not prevented by having up to date AV software. Next time you check your inbox pal and delete the countless virus spam messages, think about how you'd like to "yell" at the tit who sent it to you.

I don't particularly care for the pop-up blocker and I can't imagine that most users will care for it either.

Another ridiculous thing to say. The popup blocker was the most requested feature, and anytime anyone dissed IE in the past, it included that particular lack. Where do you get these ideas from?

This is going to be a big hassle for people who don't know what they are doing and it's likely going to be a big hassle for everyone else too.

Another ridiculously empty statement: yes, it may be hassle for some people, but they have to learn somewhere. How hard can it be to click "next", "next", "finish"? For every person that goes through installing it, it means _less_ hassle for the rest of us, not more. At this point, it is clear to all that you are just engaging in pointless FUD, either for the sheer fun of trolling or perhaps regrettably, you are as dumb as you sound.

- Oisin

Re:sitting

[garcia]

It's a godsend, and it works pretty well.

While it may work pretty well (depending on your own definition of that) it is certainly NOT a godsend.

It's certainly not a "godsend". If anything it is just an annoyance that most people (who will even get it installed) will shut off if they can.

Re:sitting

[tehcyder]

If all that's true, I expect there will be a lot of complaints here about nasty M$ putting even more software utility programmers out of a job...

Re:sitting

[mingot]

And most of the complaining will likely be done by open source advocates whose choice of software also has the net effect of putting the same utility programmers out of a job.

M$ is teh bad!1

Re:sitting

[Phillup]

But, can you uninstall any crappy browser built into the OS?

Re:sitting

[Henk Poley]

That's why I'm currently putting a nice 'switch on automatic updates' message on all big forums I regular.

Re:sitting

[silicon not in the v]

You can uninstall any crappy ad-blocking software you may have.

What? Like Firefox?

You can uninstall any crappy free firewalls that you may have.

What? Like the ones that actually block outbound connections too?

You can uninstall any crappy anti-IE-malware apps you may have.

Oh, I hadn't heard that they managed to remove IE completely from Windows. That's quite a change.

I have apps that make Windows work decently and fairly safe. You can have them when you pry them from my cold dead hard drive.

Re:sitting

[garcia]

It doesn't "yell" at you for not having antivirus software, it announces, and quite rightly too.

Announcing is telling me once and going away (possibly once a boot would be acceptable w/o having to click something else). "Yelling" at me is telling me quite frequently that I don't have it installed.

Another ridiculous thing to say. The popup blocker was the most requested feature, and anytime anyone dissed IE in the past, it included that particular lack. Where do you get these ideas from?

I got them from running the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. It is much easier for me to understand. I can only imagine that it would be easier for someone else as well.

Another ridiculously empty statement: yes, it may be hassle for some people, but they have to learn somewhere. How hard can it be to click "next", "next", "finish"? For every person that goes through installing it, it means _less_ hassle for the rest of us, not more. At this point, it is clear to all that you are just engaging in pointless FUD, either for the sheer fun of trolling or perhaps regrettably, you are as dumb as you sound.

You are such a troll. First off, it's not difficult to download and install, as that wasn't what I was talking about. It is, however, an annoyance that most users will not care to deal with (these are the same people that get trojans, viruses, and spyware because they click YES through everything and fail to read what they are doing). You think that they want firewall and anti-virus notifications to pop-up? You think that they want to have their popups on valid sites not show because they have the pop-up blocker installed by default? I don't.

Re:sitting

[x0n]

You are such a troll. First off, it's not difficult to download and install, as that wasn't what I was talking about. It is, however, an annoyance that most users will not care to deal with (these are the same people that get trojans, viruses, and spyware because they click YES through everything and fail to read what they are doing). You think that they want firewall and anti-virus notifications to pop-up? You think that they want to have their popups on valid sites not show because they have the pop-up blocker installed by default? I don't

I'm a troll? pfff. At least my post had substance based on established fact. Yours was pure conjecture based on guesswork, FUD and hearsay. I have SP2 RTM installed -- you clearly do not -- and it does not constantly annoy you about AV and FW software. You can inform it that you want to handle the monitoring of av/fw s/w manually and it will no longer _inform_ you of this lack. Secondly, I believe we are trying to talk about the merits of SP2, not the idiocy/laziness of the general computer using populace. What exactly is this "annoyance" that you talk of? Some of these people that you talk of probably think they have AV software installed, or perhaps it's not up to date. Anything that will make ppl take a second look and perhaps learn something is GOOD in my book.

Thank you for pointless rebuttal, and good luck with the idle conjectures.

- Oisin

Re:sitting

[slaker]

Last time I checked, anti-virus software was an optional component. Since MOST antivirus packages put you into an unbroken cycle of for-pay subscription renewals, updates that don't install properly and neverending bugs and incompatibilities, I think I'll continue to take a pass.

housecall.antivirus.com is free and requires nothing from me, if I thought I might have a virus.

Re:sitting

[x0n]

Garcia, you are making me laugh here. Honestly. I'm not trying to debate the inability of users to understand things. This is a clear truth, and your continued mouthing about this fact is the clearest example of a Strawman I've ever read.

I mean what is your point? The modding of your original post down to a Troll is the clearest example I can find of your continued silliness.

Thank you for thanking me about my troll about your troll about my troll about your flamebait etc.

- Oisin

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean what is your point? The modding of your original post down to a Troll is the clearest example I can find of your continued silliness.

Thank you for thanking me about my troll about your troll about my troll about your flamebait etc.

The users of Slashdot are also just as dumbed down as the users of XP SP2. We can't always help their unjustified negative moderation. Perhaps they will also mod your objectional bullshit to -1.

I'm crossing my fingers that there are *some* moderators out there with a sense of what's correct and what's trolling shit.

Re:sitting

[caluml]

I also have to feed and care for my wife's XP Home edition system

No wife of mine will ever be allowed to run XP in my house. Why yes, I am single, how did you guess?

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO KNOW that you can TELL it to stop YELLING at you right? It's a single check box (Well three, one for firewall, one for automatic updates and one for virus software)

SO TELL IT TO STOP YELLING AT YOU AND YOU PEOPLE WILL STOP YELLING AT YOU HERE FOR BEING SUCH A DOLT!

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother responding anymore. He's obviously much more intellectually superior then the rest of the world. You can't win.

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I am far more intelligent than he is. He can't argue without trolling and making personal attacks.

My points were valid and because he could not refute them he decided it was better to make a jackass out of himself.

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Man claims adding pop-up blocking to IE6 will NOT be useful to most users.

Man calls another poster a troll.

Sweet.

Re:sitting

[x0n]

If that is actually you Garcia, I haven't stopped laughing yet. In fact, I think I just pissed myself. If this is someone else trolling as him, even funnier.

I may be guilty of some personal ad hominem, but you/garcia imparts his on everyone with his comments.

- Oisin

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily for me I am free (and obviously well rewarded) to do so.

Re:sitting

[llefler]

What? Like the ones that actually block outbound connections too?

Anyone know if there is a free firewall that ONLY blocks outbound connections? ZoneAlarm, Kerio, and others all want to incorporate a ton of features in hopes of selling it.

NAT takes care of most inbound connections. I just want something that can let me know anytime an app tries to make an outbound connection. We're getting too many programs phoning home under the guise of checking for new versions.

Re:sitting

[AK Marc]

You think that they want to have their popups on valid sites not show because they have the pop-up blocker installed by default?

I have a pop up blocker, and it has blocked one and only one site I've ever wanted pop ups on. I've never reaceived any unwanted pop ups. I'd be interested in how many "valid" sites there really are with pop ups. But my blocker does let pop ups through where you click on an explicit javascript link, and I'm not on SP2 yet, so I don't know if they have an all-or-nothing implimentation, or something that actually has some intelligence behind it, like the pop up blocker that has been in Opera as a standard feature for a while now.

Re:sitting

[Anonymous Coward]

So... what, it's a good thing that dumb ol' users can't be trusted to check a box rather than just sit there getting pissed off about this damn antivirus warning and *never* bother to read what it's saying? I think I'm missing something in your argument.

And, oh no! Your leet FCKGW-xxxxx CD-key doesn't work anymore! Just like it didn't in SP1!

Re:sitting

[Kymermosst]

What? Like the ones that actually block outbound connections too?

Actually, I run XP on my laptop (way more battery life than Linux, and no missing functionality... Linux is catching up, however...), and after I installed SP2, the first thing it did was offer to block a vendor-provided 'call-home' application.

That application only makes outbound connections.

Re:sitting

[silicon not in the v]

"and after I installed SP2, the first thing it did was offer to block a vendor-provided 'call-home' application."

OK, maybe I was thinking of the little firewall that was already in XP. I thought I had heard that the new one still just blocked inbound. If it is as you say, then I retract my criticism.

Re:sitting

[Kymermosst]

OK, maybe I was thinking of the little firewall that was already in XP. I thought I had heard that the new one still just blocked inbound. If it is as you say, then I retract my criticism.

As far as I can tell, that's the case. Though it didn't try to block FireFox. I'm going to do more testing. As far as I can tell, the app I referred to in my previous post doesn't open any listening sockets. I could be wrong. It also wanted to block my IRC client.

I could be wrong, of course. It is Windows, after all.

(I've got a 15 gig partition on this machine just waiting for a Linux distro just as soon as I feel like I'll get good battery life and a cool CPU with it.)

Fast download!

[reidconti]

Mmm, boss just downloaded 475MB in 3 minutes.. gotta love Universities in the summer!

I'm guessing the non-MSDN version is smaller...

Re:Fast download!

[Clemensa]

I have dial up. On a two hour cut off basis. I'm thinking my system may stay unpatched !

Re:Fast download!

[SpaceCadetTrav]

Try a job in the real world and get the same speed all year long.

Re:Fast download!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have 3 choices:

1) Order the service pack on CD
2) Get a better dialup ISP
3) Stay the hell off my internet

Re:Fast download!

[Wog]

You could always BitTorrent it.

With auto-resume, you could get it in, say...
40 hours? So downloading a chunk a day will conservatively get it to you in a month.

Re:Fast download!

[secolactico]

I have dial up. On a two hour cut off basis. I'm thinking my system may stay unpatched !

You can always order the CD from MS. I believe they are giving them away.

Re:Fast download!

[Neophytus]

Windows BITS will download SP2 incrementally every time you are online using spare bandwidth (assuming you dial in directly) when you enable automatic downloading of updates. In a couple of months (years ;)) you'll be prompted that it's ready to install, assuming you haven't ordered your cd by that time :)

Please...

[superpulpsicle]

RTM usually means there are about 60 hotfixes to follow.

I swear among all OSes, AIX is the only OS that has figured out how to pack near perfect patches. M$ still has alot to learn from IBM, even in 2004.

Re:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

still has alot to learn

That is what Yoda said. He's dead, lost the most powerful Jedi and let count dooku escape...

As for advice, M$ has so much cash on hand that IBM should be taking lesson from them and stop blundering contracts.

Re:Please...

[Valdar729]

AIX is the only OS that has figured out how to pack near perfect patches

Does that mean they only released a single patch...ever? Since the first one was perfect then there was never a need for another!

Re:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I swear among all OSes, AIX is the only OS that has figured out how to pack near perfect patches."

I take it you've never maintained anything running OS X then...

Re:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot that Apple update that deleted people's harddrives under certain conditions?

Missing features...

[dave-tx]

Sure would have been nice if they had included a new solitare game in the release. I've already got my machine firewalled, and have never had an issue with security on this box. I mean, hell, at least give me something I'll use!

Only being half sarcastic, actually.

Already disabled the firewall

[Microlith]

After it harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet. Even after letting it run for a while, it never spotted a program connecting that wasn't supposed to be.

I imagine things will continue as they have. No firewall. No spyware, no trojans, no 0wn3d machines. Just proper patches and Mozilla.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[darien]

After it harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet. Even after letting it run for a while, it never spotted a program connecting that wasn't supposed to be.

Maybe you didn't like it, but I imagine Zone Labs are feeling pretty nervous right now...

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

is this a joke?

you have no firewall?

unless you use dial-up, get one, now. buy Norton from Symantec. unfortunately, all free firewalls are rubbish.

or buy a hardware firewall/router.

don't connect to the internet without a firewall.
firewalls are nothing to do with what browser you use - browser hijacks are over http usually anyway, and are through insecurities there. so Mozilla is nothing to do with nor, nor is oulook.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Nick of NSTime]

What's your IP?

Signed,
Nigerian Scammer

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[MindStalker]

Whats really funny, is in RC2 (don't know if its fixed yet). It bugged me about every program. Except my network print server, it just blocked access to completly, without any notification. Had to turn firewall completly off to use it couldn't find any way to unblock.
Yes I told microsoft, if they listened is another story.
(Incase anyone is interested it was linksys wireless print server WPS54GU2)

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

go away astroturfer. Norton is shit. Zonealarm Free rules.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

127.0.0.1

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take your word from it . ZA pro sucked so totally, I assumed ZA free sucked more. maybe not.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus, someone advocates not using a firewall and he gets +5 informative!?!?!?

how bout -10 idiotic?

don't use windows XP firewall, sure. but even that's better than nothing.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

firewall apologists are unsmart. only paranoid people and the government need firewalls. stop being foolish.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

You can unblock any port for any server or service either local or remote. Just a few clicks around the various settings tabs would have made that pretty obvious.

The firewall is actually pretty nice and about as easy to use as anything. But you STILL couldn't figure it out, well they tried!

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[AKnightCowboy]

127.0.0.1

Fool, that's your localhost address. Your real address is the one assigned to a physical adapter. For example, mine is 192.168.10.20. Feel free to hack me all you want.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[ImTwoSlick]

205.161.7.88

Go for it!!

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[sirshannon]

"harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet."

I was told that the firewall only detects/blocks/prompts regarding incoming traffic, not outgoing.

Did they change this?

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[bluephone]

ZoneLabs should be nervous. I switched to SyGate and found all my problems with online games vanished, BitTorrent is faster (didn't think that was possible), the traffic meter rocks, and my boot time is half as long as with ZoneAlarm. SyGate is just a better product than ZoneAlarm, and I used to swear by ZA.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

The IP of my Windows XP machine is 10.0.0.11. Would you like to try to hack into it now? By the way, it's behind a firewall that effectively doesn't allow any TCP SYN packets through, so good luck establishing a TCP connection to the Windows machine.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

> idiot

Either this is a subtle troll, or you yourslef have been trolled. Either way, for some unclear reason, I feel the need to point it out.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[MindStalker]

problem is I can't figure out what port or service that needs unblocking. For some odd reason it not only won't let me connect for printing, it won't let me connect to the port 80 web interface for configuration. Which doesn't make any sense, but I tried adding port 80 for local subnet, and that doesn't help any. So I really don't know.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[maird]

Hey, that's on my subnet and you don't respond to ping and port-scan shows no response on any port. You hackers are really clever.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[rnelsonee]

Thanks for that post. Since ZA doesn't play well with my Azareus BitTorrent client, I was in the market for a new firewall. I'll have to try out SyGate (I'm just assuming the SP2 firewall will be full of holes - lord knows there will be enough people looking for 'em).

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute! That's my subnet. What are you two doing on my subnet?

I'll fool you both though. I'll disconnect the modem!

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[FrankHaynes]

I agree. I used to swear by Zone Alarm also, but now I swear at it. Exceedingly long load times at boot and some blocked activity whose source is not clearly detectable leave me longing for better these days.

If the firewall is more configurable than it has been in the past and actually works without being unnecessarily intrusive, I'm all for it.

So far, the very few reviews of SP2 that I have heard are promising, and I hold no love for Micro$loth, believe me. If this thing is as good as they say it is, then I say "release the hounds!"

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[WaterBottle]

With your PrintServer running, just run NETSTAT -N from a CMD window. It will show the applications and ports that are running on your machine. If that doesn't work just portscan the front of your box and see which ports are advertised. If it's a private port i.e. > 1024 you'll most likely have to change the default port range on your scanner.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Frizzle Fry]

I think so and hope so. The point of a firewall should be to block unwanted internet traffic, which nowadays largely means spyware on your computer logging and reporting things you'd rather it didn't.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[sirshannon]

"I think so and hope so."

I hope so but I don't think so. Have you seen/heard otherwise?

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Finuvir]

Wait a minute! That's my subnet. What are you two doing on my subnet?

I'll fool you both though. I'll disconnect the modem!

They'll be trapped!

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

it goes like this.

first, you're paranoid about the big bad internet, so you stick on the firewall and hope you're ok. you advise everyone to have a firewall.

then, you learn what a firewall does, you realise it doesn't stop all problems. you think you're God. you think you don't need one. you turn it off and you're ok, all those scary pings were nothing. you laugh at people who have one, and deride anyone who says they're a good idea because you think they're stuck in phase 1 above. but you're wrong. there are things you don't know, and you don't know you don't know.

then you get to the third stage, you fully understand what a firewall does, and what it doesn't do. you know that it won't fully protect a clueless user, but it might lead him in the right direction. and you know it's a good idea for many reasons I can't be bothered to type, because many have already been said here. congrats, you're getting a clue now.

you, my friend, are proudly displaying your ignorance.

Re:Already disabled the firewall

[MindStalker]

nevermind, final SP2 fixed it and didn't need to unblock any ports. Shrugs.

The short answer

[lildogie]

> Is it odd or even service packs that usually cause problems?

Yes.

Mirrors...

[ares284]

It's the top three downloads on Filemirrors.com, for those of you having problems getting working links.


-Ares

Re:Mirrors...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all pretty much slashdotted. Why doesn't anyone hardly ever use Freecache.org? It's awesome and it's FREE, ffs.

Re:Mirrors...

[RonnyJ]

You can now download it from Microsoft here

Re:Mirrors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will about MS, but the one thing they do have is wicked bandwidth.

Re:Mirrors...

[hacker]

I thought this one was funny:

$ GET http://web01.genmay.net/stuff/wxpsp2/WindowsXP-KB8 35935-SP2-ENU.exe

<html>
<head></head><body>
<script language=javascript>
document.location='http://ww w.goat.cx';
</script>
</body></html>

SP2 = Slashdot Posting 2?

[techmuse]

Apparently, this posting fixes the prior a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/ 06/2015257&tid=201&tid=128"Slashdot Posting 1, which mentioned the release of SP2 on Friday evening!

Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still running Windows NT 5.0 Beta, from MSDN about 7 years ago. (I don't do Windows much). Is there the slightest point in me downloading this and burning it to a CD?

"RTM"??

[BlakeStone]

Why on earth do they need to make that a three letter acronym? Is "manufacturer" too big a word for people to say?

Re:"RTM"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth do they need to make that a three letter acronym?

Um, that's TLA, not "three letter acronym". We have these things for a reason...

Re:"RTM"??

[Zone-MR]

It's a perfectly standard acronym in the software development word. RC = Release Candidate, RTM = Release to manufacture, RTW = release to web.

On your crusade against acronyms, you didn't seem to object to Service Pack 2 being called SP2.

What's wrong with acronyms, unless they are abused (u r teh funny, lol).

Re:"RTM"??

[Dmala]

It's also handy because, when a release is so many weeks late (varies by company), "Release To Manufacture" changes to "Release The Motherfucker"

Big Push with the Automatic Updates

[electricmba]

Every time they update a Microsoft O/S, the "Automatic Updates" feature is more in your face. Also, didn't I hear a while back that the "Scanning for Updates" plug-in captures and sends all sorts of extra info, like # of HD's in your comp, available space, hardware installed, etc.? Wonder what this new and improved plugin grabs.

Re:Big Push with the Automatic Updates

[osu-neko]

Unfortunately, not in your face enough -- Windows users have gotten too used to closing any window that opens unrequested without even reading what it says. I finally went around and set Windows Update to just automatically install the updates for people, as they would never do it themselves no matter how many times I urged them to stay on top of their updates.

Re:Big Push with the Automatic Updates

[MortisUmbra]

Thats why God (At least I'm sure he thinks he is) gave us Group Policy :)

Re:Big Push with the Automatic Updates

[j0217995]

Ummm just use group policy and Software Update Services instead... Much cleaner and easier. You can manage it and "approve" which patches and installs you deploy to your end users. Works like a charm

List of patches

[Lisandro]

Does anyone know where i can find a list of bugfixes that this service pack includes, in addition to the already mentioned new security features? I've been battling with USB in XP (a webcam/digicam that makes the system reboot), and got nowhere so far.

Re:List of patches

[DeeKayWon]

It's not hard to find. Go to Info for IT pros from the main XP site (left side), click on the SP2 link near the top, then "List of all Updates". That'll get you here.

Re:List of patches

[Lisandro]

I'm a retard, i couldn't find it myself after 40' of searching. Thank you very much!

How to change your pirated XP key

[rnelsonee]

If you're using one of the two widely pirated keys for XP (XXXXX-640-0000356-23XXX or XXXXX-640-2001765-23XXX), SP1 didn't install for you, and neither will SP2. So go ahead and change your key using Microsoft's own process. Search the web for valid keys....

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[darkmeridian]

SP2 does work with pirated keys. MS has given up banning "stolen" keys. Anyways, search for the Windows XP key generator for the corporate edition. There is a way to make your edition a corporate edition by editing a file before you burn your CD. Search for it on Google because MS hunts down these links so they change. And if I link to it here, then the MS moles will just shut them down even quicker.

So, use some elbow grease.

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[typobox43]

SP2 still blocks the keys that SP1 blocked, for the few people still using those keys.

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[darkmeridian]

I heard this from other people, too. I guess someone made a mistake, then. http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=9214/

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[rnelsonee]

Keep reading that post... it states:

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

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[Nahor]

From your post:

If you're using one of the two widely pirated keys for XP [...], SP1 didn't install for you,

From your link:

How to change the Volume Licensing product key on a Windows XP SP1-based computer

Am I missing something here?

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[rnelsonee]

I think the author of that article screwed up the wording. The process was originally created for users who couldn't get SP1 installed in the first place (which is described in the text of the article). I have no idea why "SP1-based computer" was used, other than to make sure that searches for "SP1" would land on his/her aricle. But I went through all this on my pre-SP1 box, and then SP1 was able to install after I changed my key. I saw that "SP1-based" headline too and thought it was weird, but I guess it's just a mistake.

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[CvD]

So do you need to install SP1 before you can install SP2?

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, they block you when you need to do windows update. Since MS has changed their WU website to v5 for XP users, my 643 pid is blocked.

So regardless of whether SP2 works with "pirated" keys, WU will get you back.

Re:How to change your pirated XP key

[Anonymous Coward]

SP2 still blocks the keys that SP1 blocked, for the few people still using those keys.
There are also some keys that weren't blocked by SP1, but are blocked by SP2.

Service pack or what it should have been?

[PipoDeClown]

Well Microsoft finally donnit. Iam glad they brought the final version of their XP operating system after using the beta version for over 2 years now. Looking forward to bugfixes to this version.

Quick question about system restore

[Typingsux]

Any excerpts from any links telling if I run a system restore point before SP2 will I be able to go back?

Re:Quick question about system restore

[tmbg37]

Assuming it's the same as with SP1, installing the new service pack will erase all previous restore points. I'm not 100% sure, though.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[Anonymous Coward]

I did that with a beta, no problems at all.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[SilentChris]

Yes, no problem. Did it in beta, assuming they didn't change anything. System restore is a freaking godsend.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I tested it out on a freshly installed SP0 and the SP2 creates a restore point. Unless you're talking about erasing all restore points before this SP2, then you're talking gibberish.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[Zerbey]

Yes, did it with the beta's and RC's whilst hammering away at them in testing. Seems to work well.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[darkmeridian]

The SP2 pack claims to backup your files so the update can be removed. This is as good as a restore point, because if it doesn't work, chances are your system is so borked that a restore point won't work, either. Just backup your personal files.

Re:Quick question about system restore

[drawfour]

I'm installing SP2 right now on my machines, and they all say "Creating System Restore Point" (or something close to that). So yes, SP2 will create a restore point so you can back out.

and pirate users ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I tried (and yes, my version of XP is pirated) XP installed SP2 just fine but then I was barred from using Windows Update thereafter. I don't know if MS changed this but as I found SP2 to annoyingly cloying, it really doesn't matter.

Re:and pirate users ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a keygen and change your product key.

Slashdotting the Internet?

[yndrd]

Let's see...millions of Windows users all downloading 250MB at once....

I guess this is the nuclear attack we've been waiting for to see if this whole "Internet" concept really works.

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah, it's going to be a friggin' disaster, because as everyone knows, Slashdot readers are all rabid Microsoft users.

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, many people's home computers have automatic update on. It's designed to go easy on the bandwidth and download in the background. I'd be suprised if it didn't have server load balancing in it.

Corprate users only have to download once for all their computers.

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be nicer if they'd incorporate bittorrent style bandwidth saving. I don't think Bram Cohen patented his idea.

Corporate users with good admins only have to download once. Many will have to download per user.

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[DrEasy]

Heh, maybe we can run Microsoft to bankruptcy by running their internet bill to crazy levels! Let's all download SP2 once a day in the background! ;-)

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[moonbender]

This isn't the main release, most people won't download SP2 for another couple of days. For now it's just geeks, a lot of them I'm sure, but I doubt it'll make Microsoft's (or rather akamai's) servers break a sweat. Now, when millions of users automatically download it via Windows Update, that's when it's more stressful. But of course they knew that before and might have taken precautions, and also most people will not download anything like the full 250 MB, more like a hundred.

Re:Slashdotting the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...millions of Windows users all downloading 250MB at once....

I had no problem downloading SP2 from Microsoft's website at 1MB a second on my 10Mbps fiber connection. Only took about 4 minutes :-)

MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[holy_smoke]

Just a friendly warning for the non-geekier readers out there: there are a LOT of bogus copies of this out on the net and P2P. Some are trojaned, some are pre-RTM. If its not the right size, md5 hash, or not digitally signed by MS and dated 8-4-04 don't install it. Have to give MS kudos on this one. The security center is a good addition, if a little annoying at first until you customize it to fit your situation. It even recognized AntiVir as my anti-virus program. System is running fine, no problems during or afer install except for a "cannot back up atapi.sys" warning (no big).

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

ATAPI.SYS is due to some sort of CD tools being used - say Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120%. Uninstall them and you'll be fine.

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just wait until Microsoft releases it to Windows Update. Come on, people, you've done without it for months... years... why the sudden rush to download it from all manner of unsavory sources? Be patient.

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gettin it too and I don't have any CD burning/utility software installed.

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[moonbender]

... why the sudden rush to download it from all manner of unsavory sources?

I'm downloading it, but I don't understand why anyone would download it from anywhere but Microsoft. There's really no need for a torrent, I doubt it's faster via BT and I don't really care if it's increasing Microsoft's bandwidth fees. It's not like there was such a thing as /.ing Microsoft...

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

The install went fine for me taking about a half hour. But two things happened I didn't want. First it disabled my BitDefender firewall and enabled the windows firewall. This was easy to undo. Second, using Internet Explorer I was unable to download PDF files. A security popup says my security settings don't allow this file type. I haven't figured out how to undo this action. Firefox was able to download the file.

Re:MAKE SURE YOU CHECK THE MD5, SIZE, SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

Quiet, you!

The more horrors SP2 creates, the sooner I can get SP2a installed.

Slashdot Poll - what will we see first?

[Anonymous Coward]

so MS XP SP2 won the poll then?

i was hoping on HL2 =(

Re:Slashdot Poll - what will we see first?

[Anonymous Coward]

same here! roll on HL2!!

Re:Slashdot Poll - what will we see first?

[Jorkapp]

There was no XP SP2 option - but there was a Longhorn option.

I use Gentoo

[vuvewux]

Can I just `emerge` this service pack?

Re:I use Gentoo

[darin3200]

Nah, just use
'emerge --inject win-update/winxp.sp2'
It will do the same thing.

GOD this color scheme SUCKS

[JeanBaptiste]

click here for the normal slashdot green

seriously taco, this sucks. whats next, white on white?

Re:GOD this color scheme SUCKS

[Kenshin]

All of Slashdot's colour schemes suck.

There's no getting around it. It's true the statement that code developers know nothing about aesthetics other than how to please themselves.

Re:GOD this color scheme SUCKS

[dubious9]

Yeah, I hate replying to offtopic post (especally when I hate mod points). But I will complain in every thread that the color scheme is god-damn awful. I've not heard anybody that likes it, only people that don't mind it.

And I hate having to remove the 'it' in it.slashdot.org to get normal green back. I can't figging read it like it is. Yeah, bitch, bitch offtopic whatever, but come on. Props to parent for complaining again.

Re:GOD this color scheme SUCKS

[gmhowell]

I've not heard anybody that likes it, only people that don't mind it.

Taco will respond in a journal entry in another month (maybe) saying that while all of us trolls bitched about the color scheme on shit.slashdot.org, he received thousands upon thousands of emails saying how brilliant it was.

I think the solution is clear.

Does it work on pirated workstations ?

[mvballegooijen]

I was under the impression that Microsoft had withdrawn the report, that SP2 would work on pirated workstations ? Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3774567.stm I for one would be glad if it DID work on pirated workstations for the obvious reasons (worms).

Re:Does it work on pirated workstations ?

[dohcvtec]

Uhh, Windows XP doesn't run on workstations - it only runs on PCs.

Good job

[IamTheRealMike]

Seems like they've done a good job, judging from the screenshots they have nice, straightforward UI for a lot of things. In particular, their DEP UI (I'm assuming DEP is a direct equivalent to execshield on Linux) impressed me: when execshield came out there was no such control system for it. Now, the only program that I'm aware of which it broke is Wine which is a special case, but I would not be surprised if there were other programs out there which it would have broken too. It's this sort of "GUI for everything" approach the Linux community still needs to catch up on.

The new security center looked nice too, I can't imagine many people misunderstanding it.

Re:Good job

[Kanon]

Execshield broke Softimage XSI on our systems at work. We have to turn it off to run.

Re:Good job

[IamTheRealMike]

What a surprise .... too bad GUIs for this sort of thing are not prioritised.

Re:Good job

[hacker]

"It's this sort of "GUI for everything" approach the Linux community still needs to catch up on."

...except where the GUI configuration tools are not desired, which is in 99% of the case with servers and most workstations. Remember, Linux isn't just for desktops (although it excels there as well). GUI tools are slower, and just screw things up.

The other problem with the broken "GUI For Everything(tm)" mentality, is that GUI tools often get stuffed up when other tools change items in the config files that the GUI allows you to twiddle, for example reading and writing out to configuration files with an automated Perl script.

Witness how OSX screwed this up. Add a user to your OSX system with 'adduser' from the shell, and then look at your standard "Users" applet in the GUI. Oops!

"GUI For Everything(tm)" is probably fine for those who are very new to the OS, or green in general, as long as it isn't the default, and is always an optional item, not a requirement.

(Also, the caveat that it handle human-readible configuration files is a must, of course).

Re:Good job

[moonbender]

Well, from what I gather, Windows XP has both the GUI as well as a set of quite powerful administrative command line tools. I don't know anybody who uses the latter (I'm sure many people do), but that doesn't mean they don't exist... I guess a key difference is that you use the tools to administrate instead of editing files in /etc. Note that I really mean it when I say "from what I gather" and "I guess". Maybe someone else knows this stuff for a fact.

Suprnova

[Penguinoflight]

I'm not going to link to the site I got from... probably would go against DMCA, but here's a like to a torrent with like 180 seeds already. http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2355/Windows XP-SP2-RTM-exe.torrent

Re:Suprnova

[NewWaveNet]

Why BitTorrent it when you can get just as blazing fast speeds from Microsoft's official download? And they don't make you upload to download ;)

Re:Suprnova

[Anonymous Coward]

The MD5 checksum on that file is

465fcc41383bf1175be3d1984cfd099e

Which appears to not be the right one.

Re:Suprnova

[Fazlazen]

c:\>wget http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73
cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB8359 35-SP2-ENU.exe

[ boring wget stuff removed ]

14:58:25 (6.28 MB/s) - `WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe' saved [278927592/278927592]

c:\>md5sum WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe
59a98f181fe383907e 520a391d75b5a7 *WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

---- MD5 checksum looks right to me. Better check yoru download client.

Perhaps a related problem?

[goldspider]

I downloaded a small XP hotfix the other day that had something to do with wireless network security, and it now seems to require me to manually connect to my wireless network with my WEP key. Before the patch, my machine would connect automagically, using the stored key.

I kind of liked it that way though. Perhaps I'm not as security-conscious as some, but I don't really like having to manually connect my laptop to my wireless network.

Has anyone else run into this? Is this dealt with in the SP2 update?

Re:Perhaps a related problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a quote that might help:-

This patch was issued in response to a surge of malware intended to steal the unecrypted key from the private data store of users. This was unavoidable, and a design decision we had to make given the relative time and urgency.

Given the nature and scope of SP2, a full and considered solution to the matter was developed that does not as-easily allow a single comprimised client to open up an entire private network.

Re:Perhaps a related problem?

[_damnit_]

Here's my experience with XP SP2. I seem to see a similar type of preblem. XP seems to forget my passwd every once in a while. If I reset my passwd on the wireless ap to the same passwd, xp will log in automagically again. I'm not sure if it's a bug in sp2rc2 or the wireless ap, but I'm hoping it's fixed in the rtm version of sp2. Otherwise, I have to talk with the idiot^H^H^H^H^H^H technical support persons from the manufacturer.

WRONG it is RTSM

[SmallFurryCreature]

They are microsoft OEM manufacturers so it is Released To Screwed Manufacturers.

I don't want the damn firewall.

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have a firewall, but XP doesn't care. When I try to set up a home network, it keeps demanding that I activate the XP firewall. I don't want the damn firewall! Does SP2 include an option to turn off "Idiot" mode?

Re:I don't want the damn firewall.

[maskedbishounen]

And all this time I thought Windows was idiot mode..!

*ducks*

Re:I don't want the damn firewall.

[Rude Turnip]

"Idiot mode" is when one uses the "set up a home network" wizard. I think you know where this is going :)

Re:I don't want the damn firewall.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bothered to even look at the settings for the security adviser which are staring you in the face on first reboot, you would have seen that you can indeed tell it to stop "informing" you that you do not have the local firewall installed.

It would have taken less time to turn off than it took to type your clueless post!

Re:I don't want the damn firewall.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They automatically assume, if you are running Windows XP, that you are an idiot.

Re:I don't want the damn firewall.

[lowe0]

Yeah, there's a notification options dialog where you can tell it what not to warn you about.

That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Otto]

The MD5 hash of the real file is 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7. If you download it, then you can check it with any tool to generate the MD5 hash, and if they match, you can be certain it hasn't been messed with.

That's the whole point of telling people what the hash of the file is.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah, whoah slow down. How do I know that's the real MD5 hash? How do I know you aren't the jerkweed that installed the backdoor warez, and that's YOUR new hash?

HMM????

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

The MD5 hash of the real file is 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7. If you download it, then you can check it with any tool to generate the MD5 hash, and if they match, you can be certain it hasn't been messed with.

That's the whole point of telling people what the hash of the file is.

No, that's just to verify that the file you just grabbed is the same that the ancestor posted about. And now you. Point to a MS-site displaying the hash, then we'll get somewhere.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[dragonman97]

And not to be overly pedantic, but unless I download the file from Microsoft, how do I know that's really the MD5 hash? I'll wait until it's totally released, and download it once, and only once, test it, and once satisfied, will deploy it.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[southpolesammy]

No offense, but unless Microsoft themselves put up a statement with this MD5 checksum as being valid, I think I will pass on the BitTorrent method in this case. Chances are that it is 100% legit, but given the nature of the patch, I'll go with better safe than sorry and download it directly, even if it takes hours or days.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[slug359]

The file has a genuine Microsoft digital signature that you can verify by right clicking and going to properties, it'll show you the signature details and the cert chain.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[tehcyder]

59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7

Great new password for me there.

No-one will ever guess one that long.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but how do I know that's the -real- md5? Hmmm?

For all I know, that's the hash of the spurious file you want us all to infect our machines with....

I propose a tool for checking md5 hashes by using the hash of the hash.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[ManxStef]

He has a point. It's all about trust: if you don't trust any of the posters that say, "I've downloaded the original and its MD5 hash is the same as that of the torrent" then, no matter how many me too's there are, you should steer clear and get the file from a trusted source. Simple as that.

Personally, I check MD5s and GPG/PGP signatures of the binary tools I use whereever possible, but not all of them are supplied with these so it's a little impractical. It doesn't hurt to be cautious though: do you really, absolutely, positively need it [whatever it is] RIGHT NOW, or would you rather wait for a guaranteed source that doesn't stand a chance of being the latest German beta/trojan/Goatse.cx vs. Tubgirl animated Flash EXE?*

Considering that installing a Service Pack (or equivalent OS update) should NEVER be taken lightly, I'd rather spend a few hours ghosting the machine and/or making sure that everything important was backed-up and verified, rather than rush to "be the first", especially in light of the previous Slashdot XP-SP2 coverage (as unscientific and unproved as the linked article was for that topic). Besides, wouldn't you rather that Microsoft paid for the bandwidth? ;)

*(Of course all of this is hypothetical; I haven't checked the torrent or its source or tried to confirm the hash with a trusted source. It may very well be the real thing, and from the amount of news coverage starting to spread SP2-final does appear to be out.)

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[hattmoward]

You're right. Don't trust the MD5 from anyone but Microsoft.

One marketing-case word: AuthentiCode. The executable is probably self-signed. Check the properties of the file.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[zangdesign]

I'm with you. Furthermore, I'm absolutely not going to trust information like that posted on a site known for being distinctly anti-Microsoft.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

check it yourself dipshit, that what md5 checksum is for. The statement they need to make is that you're too stupid to install it.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

But how do I know the md5 generator program is legit? What if THAT'S backdoor'd?!

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Will2k_is_here]

No-one will ever guess one that long.

Nor you to remember it.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. There was a big thing going on that the anti-ms crowd has been planning for months and you just ruined it. I guess we will have to wait until SP2a now. Thanks Asshole.

Long live Apple!!!

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[SpaceLifeForm]

If it takes days (for example, you are on dialup), you might as well wait and get the CDROM.

250MB for patches? You could download a Linux distro in nearly the same amount of time.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[agallagh42]

"No-one will ever guess one that long."

"Nor you to remember it."

No need to remember it, just write it on a sticky note and stick it to your monitor...

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[skinfitz]

The MD5 hash of the real file is 59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7. If you download it, then you can check it with any tool to generate the MD5 hash, and if they match, you can be certain it hasn't been messed with.

That's the whole point of telling people what the hash of the file is.

And you know this is the hash of the genuine file precisely how?

Now explain why we should take your word for it.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Th dif erenc bet een a comp ter and a hum n is tht a hum n can under tand wha th s says.

Hi, I am the search crawler robot of Google.com. What makes you believe I cannot read this silly nonsense?

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just some "ancestor" who posted that hash, MANY people downloading officially from Microsoft are the ones who gave that out. No MS site will ever say xxxxxxx is the hash. They don't do that. Feel Free not to trust anyone but I myself I accessed the file directly from Microsoft and that's the hash. If your going to wait for an MS site to publish that hash you might as well switch to Linux now because your going to be waiting a long long time. Finally the file also has MS digital signature on it which along with the hash is about as much proof as one could ask for. If that's not good enough for you realize that someone could hijack your ssl session with Windows Update and send you a fake file for SP2 next week. Seems like your screwed all around.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[slimak]

really? Last time I checked most distros take up multiple CDs. Mandrake is 3 full CDs and I believe SuSE and RH are similar.

Sure, 250 is a lot, but after a clean install of Mandrake 10.0 the updates were something around this 250 MB too (I don't recall the exact amount as it was a couple of months ago). Granted, this updated more than just the OS and core apps, but its still a heafty download.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[fikuvin]

Corporate Exec: Hey IBM Guy. I hear that XPSP2 is out, let's get secure and get our machines upgraded.

IBM Guy: Not yet. We need to conduct a study on it. Gotta make sure it doesn't interfere with our billing rates...er..business software.

(NOTE: This is a satirical post. Had it been a real conversation, the IBM person would never have used the word "gotta")

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[kpaul]

Right click? I'm on a Mac, you insensitive clod!

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[NuclearDog]

Running Windows XP on a Mac? I think you have more problems that trojanned service packs, my friend.

ND

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to take his word for it. Do you see one single comment saying it's wrong and giving the "correct" one? No. They OSDN must me in on the conspiracy. Your not taking his word for it, you're taking the word of a community.

I've never downloaded a virus from USENET for the exact same reason. People would love to nail this guy if he's wrong, yet no one can. Why? Because he's right and you're not.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

They OSDN must me in on the conspiracy.

Great. I sound really smart there.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[skinfitz]

Great. I sound really smart there.

You know, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[skinfitz]

You don't have to take his word for it. Do you see one single comment saying it's wrong and giving the "correct" one? No. They OSDN must me in on the conspiracy. Your not taking his word for it, you're taking the word of a community.

So what you are effectively saying is that the lack of anyone saying it's wrong means it's 100% legitimate?

I've never downloaded a virus from USENET for the exact same reason. People would love to nail this guy if he's wrong, yet no one can. Why? Because he's right and you're not.

See.. the problem here is that using your method, someone must first examine the entity in question to "decide" if it's legitimate or not. Take your USENET example - someone posts virus. You would sit and wait for someone to tell you it's a virus before not downloading? Ok.. so how long do you wait? Do you wait until you see a follow up post saying "hey I downloded it and it's legit!"? (possibly by the same guy) or does the absence of any posts in x period mean it's legit? What if nobody sees the potential virus or worse what if lots of people see it but nobody bothers downloading it because they dont need to download it to know its suspicious and experience has taught them not to download things from USENET anyway?

With the XP SP2, imagine if some evil haxx0rs had effectively rootkitted it. What if the people who download it do not possess the skills to detect the rootkit, or they simply do not bother checking - "looks fine to me" - then post the MD5 hash?

The only effective way to get around this issue is code signing, however you can bet your life that someone somewhere has some form of hack that makes things look legit when they are not.

Re:That's what the MD5 hash is for.

[skinfitz]

I've never downloaded a virus from USENET for the exact same reason. People would love to nail this guy if he's wrong, yet no one can. Why? Because he's right and you're not.

I do not believe it is actually possible to "not be right" when asking a question.

I asked the poster how he knows that the MD5 hash he posted is legitimate. I also asked him to say why we should trust him. These are questions, not statements and so therefore any mention of me being "right" or "wrong" is a misnomer.

And stop posting as AC - it's childish. If you can't back an opinion with your ID then don't bother. For all I know you are the original poster which beings us back to our trust issue.

Is there any danger

[Bertie]

Of Microsoft doing the sensible thing and setting up a Bittorrent tracker? I wouldn't trust anything unofficial, given the problems they've had with the thing in development, and I don't fancy spending a fortnight downloading it.

I hope he updates it.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Windows box is pwned by a 12 year scripty kiddy I hope he remembers to install this useful update.

Re:I hope he updates it.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's been a script kiddy for twelve years? Hot damn, who says kids are getting younger?

Re:I hope he updates it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting grammar is teh cool!!!!11

Re:I hope he updates it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it's done. Now, since I did you a favor, how 'bout turning off that firewall for me?

Re:I hope he updates it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you, dad?

This is not stable

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with a CRM finance program named Made2Manage. We were informed by them that this service pack breaks the connection between them and SQL. We have heard the same thing from another software vendor for a sql based e-mail system. Supposedly, when MS turned on all of the security features for this SP they eliminated the way in which a number of vendors communicated with SQL. To date I have not received the go ahead for this service pack. M2M evidently contacted MS about this issue but received little or no assistance in resolving this issue.

So be warned. If you are running third party SQL based software this service pack may break it.

AbortRetry
Damn, now I need to create an account

Re:This is not stable

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 100% sure, but I think I remember reading that the new security settings only allow named pipe connections to sql. I don't know if this can be changed, but I would assume that it is indeed a configuration issue.

Re:This is not stable

[ldspartan]

SQL is a language, not a thing you connect to... unless I've totally missed something.

If you mean that the service pack breaks connectivity to various RDBMSs, that's entirely possible as it contains all sorts of new firewalling excitement, and most RDBMSs I've used use TCP/IP as their main transport...

--
lds

Re:This is not stable

[mchawi]

From most of the stuff I read, it breaks SQL because it blocks the port SQL communicates on with the firewall. In the FAQ on their website they say all you have to do is open up the port again.

As soon as I get ahold of the patch this will be the first thing I'll be playing with.

Re:This is not stable

[Anonymous Coward]

What rubbish. The only modes that are blocked by default on the SP2 deployment are ones that can be re-opened by allowing direct access on the ports specified. If you are using named pipes to perform such duties, then all it requires that the relevent accounts are domain-authorized to access the resource.

Just because one person can't configure their Windows network, doesn't mean the software is unstable and unusable.

The reason people consider a toned-up security policy "breaking" software is beyond comprehension. All it requires is that you explicitly allow the data to be transferred to and from, rather than blindly letting packets come and go. If this security model worked for you before, why would you need SP2?

Re:This is not stable

[Gaijin42]

In most IT circles, SQL means MS SQL Server. Where is that database? SQL, or Oracle?

Re:This is not stable

[spectecjr]

work with a CRM finance program named Made2Manage. We were informed by them that this service pack breaks the connection between them and SQL. We have heard the same thing from another software vendor for a sql based e-mail system. Supposedly, when MS turned on all of the security features for this SP they eliminated the way in which a number of vendors communicated with SQL. To date I have not received the go ahead for this service pack. M2M evidently contacted MS about this issue but received little or no assistance in resolving this issue.

Perhaps they didn't receive any assistance because all of the information they need is already on the web and has been on the web for the past two or three months?

Microsoft's SQL Server with XP SP2 FAQ

Q. How does Windows XP SP2 affect SQL Server?

A. SQL Server will have access to the local subnet by means of file and print sharing, which will enable access to named pipes, also known as multi-protocol, that use Port 445. TCP/IP and UDP will be turned off by default. Applications that connect to a SQL Server database by means of a network will not be able to accept or make connections. This setting change helps protect the customer system by making it resilient to malicious worms that send port requests to a computer in an attempt to create a denial of service attack.

Q. What if my application needs SQL Server to listen to the network?

A. In cases where your application needs to use TCP/IP or named pipes to access the network, we recommend that you set up access on an as needed basis. We also recommend that for TCP/IP, you use a static port assignment. For applications that use a named instance of MSDE with dynamic TCP port selection enabled, you can open the UDP port 1434 and the TCP/IP port as appropriate. For named pipes, we recommend that you use the Windows Firewall tool to open file and print sharing with Port 445 enabled. Microsoft does not recommend the use of multi-protocol to connect to SQL Server or MSDE.

Re:This is not stable

[neoThoth]

They likely eliminated named pipes for ODBC connections which is a horrible way to go a bout things anyway. I think it's for the better really, a lot of vendors used really shoddy procedures for their software and this type of behavior will be corrected with newer implementations like this.

Re:This is not stable

[ppz003]

So now are you getting a million more red "Visual Fox Pro just died" boxes? My limited experienced with M2M wasn't a pleasant one to begin with.

Small warning

[veritron]

If you have a processor that supports NX, SP2 will not be compatible with some programs, especially dynamic recompilers.

As R. Belmont pointed out to me on a different message board, dynamic recompilers allocate memory, fill it with x86 instructions, and then jump to it. NX specifically prohibits executing allocated memory, so dynamic recompilers should crash in SP2 on processors that support NX.

Expect this feature to break many current emulators (Mame will be fine.) The feature supposedly can be turned off in Windows, but since I don't have a processor that supports NX, I don't know where one would do so in the interface. The newer Athlon chips - specifically, the Athlon 64's, and future Pentium 4s, support NX, so keep that in mind when upgrading to SP2.

Re:Small warning

[Freon115]

Hmm thanks a ton for that warning. I'm runnin a AMD64 and a few emulators :)

Anyway, I guess it works like the compatibility settings and can be set per application.
I would check it out right now, but have to wait for Microsoft to release the damn french service pack instead :p

Re:Small warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a matter of syntactical correctness more than anything else. The code segment fills the data segment with code, and then has to (by specification) mark the appropriate segment as code to the processor, which will grant it execution rights upon the system.

Previously this was unenforced, but if you're going to be developing this kind of application for processors with NX support, the least you could do is adhere to the damn specifications.

-SG

Re:Small warning

[tuffy]

Expect this feature to break many current emulators (Mame will be fine.)

This won't break MAME's dynarec MIPS core? Has R. Belmont said that explicitly? I get the nasty feeling NX will make kinst and friends run very slowly.

Re:Small warning

[veritron]

One of MAME's authors works at Microsoft, so he's been able to test it against the new service pack.

Re:Small warning

[Anonymous Coward]

For roughly a decade Windows has known about the flag PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE in the VirtualAlloc function, and it continues to work properly with XP SP2. So once these programs are updated to comply, they will work again. Bang on their developers door, why should you have pity with people that can't read?

Re:Small warning

[antiher0]

Eh... you can always disable NX protection for the apps that you trust.

Re:Small warning

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in response to this, they have implemented PaX-like software DEP even if NX is unavailable, which appears to work pretty well (especially combined with the stack canaries, and ESPECIALLY combined with actual, real NX on a Sempron, Athlon 64, Athlon 64-FX or Opteron) -- but by default, both hardware and software NX is turned on in SP2 for "essential Windows programs and services only". Which all already have been recompiled with VS.NET 2003 stack canaries (/GS) anyway (hence the size of the service pack - basically a total recompile), and will be fine with it.

You can turn it on for all applications if you wish, and if an application is killed due to this, you can disable it for that application - right from the crash dialogue.

System Properties - Advanced - Performance (Settings) - Data Execution Prevention.

No real discernible performance hit.

What can I say? MS are actually, finally, trying at security. Why? Not because they care about security as such - I'm not buying that, but I do buy that they care about the PR damage that a decade of crap security that they are well known for has caused them. Full disclosure may have had an effect after all... so might the worm wars. Something, in any case, has finally kicked them into trying seriously.

I don't hate to say it, 'cause I'll appreciate fewer spam-bouncing drones... they've finally done something (fairly) right. Let's just hope they can successfully roll it out to the millions of unpatched (mostly pirate) boxes, because that's where the difference will be seen...

(Disclaimer: Does very little to fix the drooling security vulnerabilities sitting at the keyboard of some of those particular liabilities, because those morons will quite literally run anything, and click OK until the boxes go away, no matter what they say. But it's going to have quite a lot of impact anyway.)

I hope this has a real positive effect on the number of worms. I do, however, expect to see spyware, malware, and other more borderline things - such as worms using more sophisticated social attacks - becoming prevalent over the coming years.

(Linux, on the other hand, has one chief security problem: Admin who doesn't patch, and makes a compelling target for a neo-script kiddy due to being stable and often on phat connections. Hence, for example, the script kiddies trying to find the easy Linux targets because they're usually comparatively more worth 0wning for their purposes. See also, that recently-discovered-but-not-much-of-a-surprise-to- anybody SSH scanner/exploit/demi-worm that basically just tries logging in to random machines as test/test guest/guest root/password and so on, and prays it hits a really dumb admin... sooner or later... it does.)

It doesn't work on ALL pirated versions

[Swamii]

For those confused about whether pirated versions of XP will be allowed to installed the service pack, the answer is mostly no. If you have either the famouse FCK key or a few of the leaked corporate keys, for instance, you won't be able to install SP2. According to one MS employee, if you were rejected when installing SP1, you will be rejected when installing SP2. You will be excepted, however, if you've installed XP on multiple machines using a single CD. This appears to be the 'piracy' they're overlooking.

Re:It doesn't work on ALL pirated versions

[fishbowl]

"You will be excepted, however, if you've installed XP on multiple machines using a single CD. This appears to be the 'piracy' they're overlooking."

Activation, which apparently has not been broken yet, prevents this well enough.

Waiting for Godot

[pickapeppa]

As a Windows based office wonk, I've been waiting for this for a loooong time. The beta worked nicely on my test machine. although I'm going to hold off implementation for a while to see what befalls my fellow geeks. I've found installing stuff from Microsoft is like being in the infantry, you're better off letting the other guy go first.

It fixes the holes, but does it break the fixes?

[Jonah Hex]

Ok, I've read up on the new features, think it's about damn time and all that. However I'm really wondering how this thing is going to effect all the programs my little computer repair biz have been installing since, well, always. ;) Firefox, Thunderbird, Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, GoogleToolbar, AntiVir, Protowall, Blocklist Manager, a Firewall, etc. And the biz's which usually use a mix of Symantec/Norton alongside something even more esoteric if your unlucky.

I'm really not looking forward to dealing with this major of a Windows architecture switch, if only for the fact that most Windoze users love to find a brick wall and slam into it, even if that means insisting on using VirusScan OuttaDate straight off their Restore Disks labeled "Year 2000 Compliant!" Thanks Microsoft, long overdue fixes for Windows and job security all in one.

Jonah Hex

250 megs?

[DroopyStonx]

Try 475. At least, the one that's up on MSDN is 475.

Re:250 megs?

[pdawson]

The network install of SP2 is ~250 megs, the file up on MSDN is an .iso image of the full CD that includes SP2, .Net runtimes, and other such updates.

Re:250 megs?

[Fallen Andy]

Prob a full XP + SP2 CD image...
But er. Why can't they learn the concept of binary diffs a la .RTPatch?

I'm still going to wait a couple of weeks at least to see whether they have to release an SP2a before commiting to this - at least it would be good to know what scenarios it breaks in (aside from old pirate keys)....

No big rush , even the script kiddies are on holiday :-).

Re:250 megs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 475mb edition is not what most will need to download, but rather the generic pack that will update any global version of Windows XP from start to finish to bring it inline with SP2, including support for slipstreaming and multiple language sets.

If you just want the default US/UK English, you're good to go on the smaller file.

-SG

Re:250 megs?

[TheAwfulTruth]

The main size difference is that the MSDN .iso contains a new 150 meg symbol file for all of XP+SP2

But it also includes several admin tools and other things that the consumer version does not.

Re:250 megs?

[lowe0]

No, that's not ready yet. The SP is only localized in English and German; that's the 266 MB.

The rest of it is updated deployment tools, debug symbols, .Net Runtime, etc.

Re:250 megs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they learn the concept of binary diffs a la .RTPatch?

Because when you have 50 versions of a dll to patch diffs are not the best deployment method. You would either need to patch 50 times or include 50 patches.

Re:250 megs?

[CustomFort]

The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new .NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are: MD5 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7 SHA1 33A8FEF60D48AE1F2C4FEEA27111AF5CECA3C4F6 CRC32 046F12B1 The Sum for the MSDN version is: MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01

Now it's stable?!?!?

[invisik]

So, that RC2 was soooo unstable (3 of 5 machines wouldn't boot afterwards) and now the release is stated as "stable" ? I find it hard to believe that they were able to fix it that quickly.

Does anyone have a GM they've tested yet?

I'm still worried about having everyone install it right away... Will probably recommend to wait until September.....

Thanks for any additional info!

-m

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[freeze128]

>Does anyone have a GM they've tested yet?

Windows XP SP2 is for Computers running Microsoft's Windows XP. It won't run on anything made by General Motors.

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[dfj225]

I have RC2 installed on my system and I haven't had any problems yet. No BSODs, no crashes of other software that I use, and I have even been playing Doom 3 with no problems. To me it seems that RC2 was pretty stable. Now I might just be one of the lucky 2 of 5 that works and it might have something to do with the fact that my system only has quality hardware and drivers installed, but I am pretty happy with RC2. In fact, I have even noticed an increased performance in my wireless connection. It seems to me that the installation of the final SP2 should go pretty smoothly, at least on my system anyway.

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[xneilj]

See this for your answer.

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition of stable varies. The problem in the heavily biased tests was that driver-level hooks to the operating system were being used to enforce the reinstallation of software that should not have been there in the first place. These hooks were not designed to work with the new configuration, and as such fail, causing all manner of wierd and wonderfuls.

While SP2's final release does not contain specific code to deal with this, if your system is completely comprimised then any good security institution will tell you that a system rebuild is in order. It is your personal task to obtain software that secures a system in advance of a major upgrade. You wouldnt start fitting new locks on the car while driving down the road at full throttle, after all :)

As a matter of fact, the industrial success rate for non-compromised systems when deploying XP SP2 was near enough 100% amongst the test cases as to make no odds. Don't forget, the same source that claimed 3 out of 5 was also the one saying it'd been delayed again just last week.

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[John Sully (I hate a]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the WPA support now seems to work properly (I was never able to successfully use the the one in SP1) so I don't need to use the crappy Netgear utility anymore.

Good work Microsoft!

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been playing Doom 3 with no problems? Now we know you're lying :)

Re:Now it's stable?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It [XP SP2] won't run on anything made by General Motors."

But Linux will!

An issue to note

[AviLazar]

Please be aware that SP2 will cause some problems with official MS products (i.e. CRM). So you may want to backup your system (obvious) prior to installing this update.
Someone sent a friend of mine a BSOD graphic after they installed SP2 on their computer. Their computer now needs a fresh install. Though I like to do a fresh install whenever an SP update comes out (good for the soul).

Re:An issue to note

[Matt Perry]

Someone sent a friend of mine a BSOD graphic after they installed SP2 on their computer.

How exactly does one take a screenshot of a BSOD? ...Seeing as the system has crashed by that point. I think you're just making that up.

Re:An issue to note

[AviLazar]

VMware should give the person the option to do this.

Re:An issue to note

[Matt Perry]

Oops. I stand corrected. It hadn't occured to me that someone might be using VMware.

Re:An issue to note

[Anonymous Coward]

digital cameras can do amazing things nowadays

Re:An issue to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, slipstream it into your XPpro install disk and call it done.

Install XP, get SP2 installed at the same time. no more thinking and cuts at least 60 reboots out of Microsoft OS install proceedure.

Slipstreaming is the best thing they could have EVER came up with, I just wish I could slipstream Mandrake patches into a set of mandrake install CD images....

Digitally Signed

[Anonymous Coward]

All Official MS Binaries are digitally signed (see the file/archives properties)

but here is the md5 for those who want it
59a98f181fe383907e520a391d75b5a7

Not so fast, cowboy

[yankeessuck]

Some applications may not work properly with SP2 so do your homework before applying this. For example, Microsoft's own CRM product does not work properly with SP2 without an upgrade and applying some workarounds. I can't imagine that would be a fun thing to do.

Re:Not so fast, cowboy

[Bohemoth2]

I'll try to download it tonight but i'm scared of how much shit it'll turn on that i've turned off. I'll see if i can get shadowbane and Counterstrike running under winex first.

Re:Not so fast, cowboy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are worrying for nothing. Been there, done that, works fine with no messing around other than maybe a single popeup of "Allow program X to acess the net?" "Yes" done.

WineX will take you probably 148 times as long to get working.

Breaking compatibility

[mvballegooijen]

TechRepublic had an article about this a while back, you can find it here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6264_11-5222856.h tml?tag=sc. This isn't such a problem in my opinion. You can't stay backwards compatible forever. I doubt the developers of applications like the one you describe, won't be able to "fix" this on their own.

Microsoft software breaks Microsoft software.

[Futurepower(R)]

Microsoft says Installing Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) will prevent Microsoft CRM versions 1.0 and 1.2 from running correctly. Version 1.2 is the latest.

More Microsoft CRM stories: Shortly after Microsoft began using its Customer Relations Management software, we got a call from a Microsoft representative inviting us to a meeting in New Jersey. This caused some confusion until the rep said the Microsoft CRM database showed we were based in New Jersey. (Correct answer: Oregon.) Last Friday we got a call from someone at Microsoft who invited us to a local meeting. Three minutes later we got another call from the same person. She didn't realize she had called the same number.

Re:Microsoft software breaks Microsoft software.

[LardBrattish]

Corporate CRM packages autodial & pass the call on to the next free operator in the group putting relevant information up on their screen when they're connected. So a) They probably didn't dial the number themselves & b) They were working off of a script.

please be accurate in the headline so

[Anonymous Coward]

folks will fully understand

the 260MB download is only for the full network install...the msdn download includes tools and comes in at over 400MB.

folks using automatic updates are apparently looking at a 70-90MB download as the updater reads and downloads only what is missing.

and also point out the svc pk update cd will be mailed FREE OF CHARGE around the world.

What about W2003?

[mobby_6kl]

What about Windows 2003? Can this SP be installed on 2003 systems? Are they planning to release a separate SP? IIRC there's more than the new firewall etc, a lot of stuff was recompiled to include NX, it would be strange not to update the W2003.

Re:What about W2003?

[Trent05]

I would definately NOT install this on a 2003 server system. Under the hood it's a lot different than XP and they'll release a separate srvice pack if needed. Hopefully it wouldn't let you, but if you access to a server in the school lab, go nuts.

Re:What about W2003?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

The .NET/2003 Server series has much of this pre-built into it, and the limited number of applications that had to be accomodated when making design decisions meant that we could bang out the code on that operating system at a breakneck pace. With XP SP2 it was a matter of going back and testing every path through everything from SOL.exe down to ATAPI and beyond.

Additionally, a lot of the code on this release is consumer oriented, people who implictly have little knowledge of the dilema they face from hackers. They just want a button that basically says "Whoom! Sheields up!" and never hear about it again.

2003 server and XP both use the same basic firewall, but SP2 just gives it a nice look and some more dialogs for users to see whats going on. As server admins, it is implicit that you understand the activity difference when blocking off all extenerally originating transfers.

-SG

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[Valdar729]

So you're saying source code is smaller than a compiled binary? Since when did that happen.

Corprate Envrionment

[Plake]

In my office I'm going to wait and see how other rollouts happen on patchmanagement.org.

When SP4 came out for Win2k we waited about a month before we pushed it out to the office workstations. Then we manually did our Windows servers.

With SP2 having so many problems with software security I'm going to wait at least a month before we roll it out here via GPO.

I've played with RC2 which had no problems on our test system but it was great too see the improved Admin Templates in the GPO's for firewalls and general system security for Windows.

And in a related M$ Users Press Release...

[LifesABeach]

Mad Cow in the U.S., Confronting a Food Scare

'Prions', the other meat.

Debarfed Article

[sharkey]

De-barfed

A Danish, please

[sn0wflake]

I'm using a Danish Windows XP. Will this service pack work on my system?

Re:A Danish, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... NO. Bloody Dutch.

Heh.

[Kickasso]

And they say P2P has no legitimate uses. Bastards.

Windows fixes ready to download

[Anonymous Coward]

Latest Windows fixes are ready to download at these locations. fedora.redhat.com www.debian.org www.freebsd.org www.openbsd.org Thank You!

IBM?

[Daengbo]

Well, IBM isn't recommending that anyone deploy it at all just yet.

Re:IBM?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

That isn't quite accurate.

IBM is recommending that its internal people not install SP2 yet -- not because of SP2, but because IBM's web apps might be broken. Windows used to tolerate that brokenness, but SP2 now demands proper compliance with the security rules of the platform. IBM is telling people to wait until they've tested the web apps and fixed any broken ones before shifting.

For my part, I don't understand why they didn't start fixing their apps months ago. The design of SP2 was fully fleshed out by the time RC1 rolled around. One of the reasons Microsoft sent out the RC's was so that businesses and partners could update their applications.

<irony>I'm a trifle puzzled by the delay: the fixes that SP2 requires are fixes that should have been in place previously; why would anyone delay putting in necessary security fixes in their code?</irony>

Re:IBM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it also doesn't hurt that Microsoft's firewall thinks that IBM's internal system tracking software is spyware, and blocks it from broadcasting. :)

Re:IBM?

[WoodstockJeff]

For my part, I don't understand why they didn't start fixing their apps months ago.

Mayhaps because fixing sites for SP2 would have broken them for pre-SP2 WinXP?

I had numerous problems with doing things in a standards-based, secure way that won't work under Internet Explorer... That's why we develop using Mozilla and Opera to make sure the site is "clean", then test under IE and resolve the problems!

Re:IBM?

[Master of Transhuman]

Quote from the same article:

Not only IBM is showing evidence of compatibility issues with XP SP2. Microsoft's own software is also affected. Earlier this week the software vendor released an update for Microsoft CRM 1.2 because SP2 will prevent the original application from running correctly.

So Microsoft only fixed their OWN stuff this week.

Re:dupe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep reading, there's LOTS of ReDUNDANCY

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117310&cid= 9920373 http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117310&cid= 9920443 http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117310&cid= 9920634

Shh..

[maskedbishounen]

I heard some jerkweed hacked it up so after installing SP2, your box is likely fail.

Re:Shh..

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard some moron posted some bs to get attention like an attention whore

Windows security alerts

[Espectr0]

Anyone know how to disable the security alerts icon from the systray? I even tried to kill the process and it relaunches itself...

Re:Windows security alerts

[Anonymous Coward]

Instructions Here

Re:Windows security alerts

[syd2000]

> Anyone know how to disable the security alerts icon from the systray? I even tried to kill the process and it relaunches itself...

From the "Automatic Updates" tab of the System Control Panel.

Re:Windows security alerts

[boarder]

Well, I'm sure there is an option to turn it off somewhere (I haven't done the update and won't for a month or so till bugs get found), but if you just want to kill it...

It is probably launched as a service and probably as either automatic or manual. Type 'services.msc' in the Run box. You can stop and disable the service from there (you can also stop and disable a bunch of other rather useless and resource intensive services from there).

Re:Windows security alerts

[TheAwfulTruth]

Does no one even bother looking at the security center that comes up after first reboot?

Ok after that trollish intro, do this:

* Open Control panel
* Open "Security Center"
* Click on "Change the way security center alerts me"
* Turn off any alert options like virus scanning or firewall that you do not have or do not intend to have installed.
* Tray icon goes away!

Re:GOD this color scheme SUCKS - Agreed

[kryocore]

That was my first thought when I clicked on this article... Glad someone else agrees.

Re:Need a new key?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, welcome to windows 98?

Re:Missing features...Wait... do you use IE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your firewall lets TCP, port 80 through no doubt. And that is all it takes if you use IE (hopefully you don't).

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

250 Megabytes!

Yeah, what are the chances that ALL XP's are going to be upgraded? This is almost a 14 hour download at modem speeds. Certainly all of those with dial-ups will be feeling the pain.

I service a lot of computers for ordinary people. I just can't wait for the next few months as all of those systems that are in the retail channels now will need to be upgraded with this! Microsoft, you are making me a lot of money but costing your customers. Will this be factored into your next TCO study?

Re:What?

[EdMcMan]

The cd is offered for free by MS. If you don't want to download it, order it for free.

Also, Microsoft has updated their background downloading, so supposedly modem users can download this in the background (over a long period of time).

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, I will. And, personally, it is not that big an issue; I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps.

The point is I have to charge to come out and install it for my clients. Many, many will opt for my visit rather than trying to download and install it themselves. But they will end up paying for it. Contrary to what most seem to believe, most of my customers are using dial-up, NOT broadband. As for updating their background downloading, many of the dial-up connections that I deal with have limits on connect time and some ignore any of the keep-alive progs I have used in the past. I'll have to test this just to find out how useful it is.

My original post still stands! Microsoft will be making me lotsa money but they will be costing every poor schmuck that buys a system off the shelf for the next few months.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, I will. And, personally, it is not that big an issue; I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps

And I have a penis - what was your point again?

who really gives a fuck what your dsl speed is?

And why am I posting this? I DONT KNOW!

SP2 via P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

I managed to snag a copy of SP2 (the file name/size/MD5 referenced earlier in the replies) via a certain four-legged P2P network. Go thte file in about thirty minutes... I did an upgrade in a VM on WinXP Pro/SP1 and it worked fine then reformatted my main machine and so far so good *knocks on wood*

Only downside is the new Security Center feature doesn't recognize Symantec AntiVirus 8. Apparently version 9 works with the Security Center though.

Think about it.

[warrax_666]

I infer from this that you'd trust any other download from BT? Why?

Firstly, what you said simply doesn't follow from what he said. Having said that, there are things you can trust to a certain degree. Example: Media files (granted they can contain malicious content designed for flaws in mp3 player apps, but if you keep your apps up-to-date it shouldn't be a problem) and some executable content. Normally, executable content can be sandboxed to a user with no rights on the system, however a Windows service pack cannot (for obvious reasons).

So there.

Re:Think about it.

[schon]

what you said simply doesn't follow from what he said

yes it does - by including the phrase "OS UPDATES" in the phrase "I wouldn't trust OS UPDATES I got from BT", he's implying that there are things that he *does* trust - otherwise, he should have just said "I wouldn't trust *SOFTWARE* I got from BT."

Normally, executable content can be sandboxed to a user with no rights on the system

Wrong - especially on windows. In order to be useful, most software requires interaction with other parts of the system (network, reading files, etc.) Software which has requires *no* rights is typically useless - this goes double for software which is large enough to be distributed via BT.

Mirror

[EdMcMan]

http://freecache.org/http://cable.pchome.net/syste m/patch/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

This is working as of now.

In other news:

[warrax_666]

Satan will be skating to work today.

Re:In other news:

[Anonymous Coward]

Satan will be skating to work today.

On roller skates?

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

He said a patch is smaller than a binary. And he must have been thinking specifically of a kernel patch since he mentioned a 15 minute compile. And whoever modded him as flamebait needs to have their privelges taken away permanently. That is just plain abusing the system for their own personal advocacy.

BitTorrent and validity

[TheSHAD0W]

BitTorrent is designed to transfer data while verifying its validity, but in order for that to work the metafile (.torrent file) must come from a trusted source. In this case, you aren't retrieving the file from microsoft.com, so you'd better have an alternate method of figuring out whether or not it's been tampered with.

Re:BitTorrent and validity

[schon]

BitTorrent is designed to transfer data while verifying its validity, but in order for that to work the metafile (.torrent file) must come from a trusted source.

Which has exactly what to do with my post?

In this case, you aren't retrieving the file from microsoft.com, so you'd better have an alternate method of figuring out whether or not it's been tampered with.

Again, how is this different from any other executable download?

OPC

[dubbayu_d_40]

If you running an OPC node, you need to read this whitepaper by the OPC Foundation to keep it running:

opcfoundation.org/WebUI/DownloadFile.aspx?CM=1&RI= 161

Downloaded SP2 From BitTorrent

[ShiftlessXL]

I was able to download and install SP2 from a bittorrent link and the install went smoothly. It takes a while to install, around 10-15 minutes and adds the Windows Security Center to your taskbar which forces you to hide another icon you will never use. I hope there will be a way to hide it in the future. It's completely useless!

Ugh, big download

[mackman]

If you're on a slow connection, try submerging your computer in your bathtub. You'll be just as secure and you're about as likely to reboot successfully.

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[mingot]

Source code usually compresses a lot better.

Oddness

[jb.hl.com]

As an aside, one odd change I've noticed is that instead of saying Windows XP Professional, the boot screen now says only Windows XP...

Not that I'm complaining, SP2 kicks ass, but a usable IE is a long way away :)

Re:Oddness

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed the same thing! It just says Windows XP instead of Windows XP Pro. If I am going to pay hundreds of bucks for an operating system I sure as hell should see "Pro" on bootup. Not too much to ask.

But I didn't pay so.... itll do

Re:Oddness

[TimMann]

I guess they had to delete that to make room for all the security fixes.

Re:Oddness

[Kymermosst]

I noticed the same thing! It just says Windows XP instead of Windows XP Pro. If I am going to pay hundreds of bucks for an operating system I sure as hell should see "Pro" on bootup. Not too much to ask.

Hah, I got the better end of the deal. I had Home Edition. Now I've got just plain old XP. Noone will ever know. (Mostly because I don't normally admit to having XP on one of my machines.)

Yes it does. It's the same as SP1 in that regard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[RidiculousPie]

He could, perhaps, be talking about a diff(that would be just the changes in the source code)
Could easily for a moderate amount a change in a program be 25kb, although i suspect that SP2 is more than 25kb of changed code ...

another download link

[coolguy81]

http://www.filemirrors.com/search.src?file=xpsp2_R TM_ENU.exe&size=278920704

IBM is waiting

[TimTheFoolMan]

Apparently, the folks at IBM aren't exactly jumping on the bandwagon to install SPT.

Tim

Re:IBM is waiting

[Destoo]

I think it's a bandwidth issue, even if they give valid reasons.
20,000 pcs downloading 250 megs at the same time..
They want to push the update through ISSI, not Windows update.

Re:IBM is waiting

[Destoo]

oops. make that 350,000 PCs.

Re:IBM is waiting

[angrykeyboarder]

In an sizable enterprise with a decent IT department, deployments like this are done by the IT folk and not tne users. Therefore, you'd not have 20,000 downloads of SP2.

Re:FCKGW-RHQQ2-.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some corp keys from the "MSKey4in1.exe" keygen. All have a product ID of 640.

VTKTV-K7328-RR9TG-QYQV8-DRD8D
CTX6Y-BBTMB-DMBHB -6HV6F-XHTT6
HQ9CQ-B6XC4-KD69B-VD92D-JY4BW
CVB6M -23TRW-D6PWQ-KCRH9-YMP96
V2B64-8J964-7BQ49-3R7RX- DHVJT
V6JYK-P66M6-37XXT-CF3VP-P7H8Q
C23CK-RPXRB- 32PX6-HK78T-K8JHQ
KJ34B-FBJG3-YM63X-X376F-QYMBQ
XQ3RF-YYJRJ-P28CF-T9KQ6-2JMBQ
BP84D-HPKC4-PH33W-P KWVT-3XKJY
C3FXP-QRMT3-CFKFF-97KG2-FJ4TQ
K796H-Q WDRQ-MKGGQ-PXBR2-BT3TG
K7YHX-MM7J9-MX9PG-XGQXY-HP TGQ
HBJK8-RGGYX-2BQ98-MWFTF-FK2VW
XRFT2-KKPQB-RR 9XQ-93YHK-GQ933
M8R6V-WX3VY-MYX87-H23F2-2JQFM
VV X3K-4G7FG-H2RBJ-GGBPF-7XGJG
W9HM3-JD292-JQ4JR-B4W WV-8QFR8
BQW6B-CPX6F-J3QB6-JTWHM-6GTGQ
FYPMR-2HJ R4-V94BR-MRX4P-BYWQW

The same keys that were banned in SP1 are banned in SP2.

Re:IBM is waiting on SP2, not SPT (doh!)

[TimTheFoolMan]

SPT? Andy Granetelli will be rolling in his grave over that one.

Tim

Firewall, schmirewall

[Fryth]

Running without a firewall is not smart, but not necessarily stupid, either. Once you run all the windows update patches, and disable file sharing on your WAN adapter (or at least use a good password and disable the guest account), what's left for people to hack? The only difference between this situation and one with a firewall, is that your ports will be replying to requests with a connection reset packet instead of staying silent. It shows that your PC is up and running, but nothing else. To be exploited, one must be already running trojans or spyware that allow this sort of behaviour. You don't open *those* attachments, do you? So run your machine without a firewall all you want, just be sure to keep it up-to-date.

Also, ZoneAlarm works as promised, and it's free. This isn't a hearty recommendation, but it's not broken, either. If you don't have a hardware solution (router), use ZA.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why you'd let any program on your computer open any ports and connect without informing you.

I don't care whether you dont read any email. if your pc is open in anyway, to installing programs downloaded or on dvd, to browsing (even on mozilla), or on a network, or you let someone else use it, then you're at risk.

low risk, ok. maybe very very low risk. but the firewall is very low cost, price zero upwards - memory and cycles next to zero. annoyance factor, zero (except ZA, which tells you every packet is a hack attempt).
there's no downside, and the upside is you can't get trojans, you don't have to be as uptodate in security (although obviously you should be, but it's less critical) and you don't need to be so careful about configuring and turning off services (although you should be. but a firewall will help you guess which services, like messenger, you should disable).

technically, yes, you don't need a firewall. but you're right to say it's not smart.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Heywood Yabuzof]

There will always be new vulnerabilities. I mean, what do you between the time a vulnerability is announced/discovered and the time MS releases a patch? Turn off your computer?

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[m_pll]

Running without a firewall is not smart, but not necessarily stupid, either. Once you run all the windows update patches, and disable file sharing on your WAN adapter (or at least use a good password and disable the guest account), what's left for people to hack?

So your hope is that you're never going to miss a patch? And that there never will be a 0-day exploit in LSASS, RPC etc? And you'll never install any programs that open a port without you knowing it immediately?

By the way, even if you don't see any pop ups from XP firewall it doesn't mean it's not working. As far as I can tell, pop ups are only generated for interactive programs that you run. Take a look at your security event log (you might need to enable 'detailed process tracking' in the auditing options first, I'm not sure). On my SP2 machine I see a bunch of messages from the firewall telling me that it has blocked several non-interactive services (such as SQL Server that I'm using for development) from listening on ports. I'm definitely not going to turn it off anytime soon.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[bluephone]

"Once you run all the windows update patches, and disable file sharing on your WAN adapter (or at least use a good password and disable the guest account), what's left for people to hack?"

Unknown RPC holes. WinXP still leaves several ports open to the world, and any of them could have unknown holes buried in the code.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Tmack]

there's no downside, and the upside is you can't get trojans, you don't have to be as uptodate in security

Hope your not in the networking/it/security field. Trojans can and are immune to firewalls. By the simple definition: a Trojan is a program appearing to be a game or other executable desirable to whoever gets it, that when run does something other than the intended result. A firewall will not stop you from getting a trojan, and a trojan can do plenty of malicious things once run whether or not you have a firewall. If you dont stay "as uptodate in security", the trojan will have full reign on your computer until you update your security by installing a virus scanner update that can catch and remove it (unless your virus scanner was eaten by the trojan itself, it does happen). A firewall reduces the chance you will have your computer compromised from services your wonderfull Microsoft OS leaves on by default with all of their wonderfull exploitable bugs (worms: a virus spread from computer to computer without user interaction), but in the case of a Trojan, it is almost always user error from opening a forwarded email attachment. Once mal-ware (virus or otherwise) is running, it can open outgoing connections through your firewall to let whoever wants to use it in.

This is why viruses/worms/trojans/etc spread so bad. People do not understand what is going on, even if they think they do. A firewall is only part of a solution, same as a virus scanner is only another part. Running only one or the other will leave you wide open to attack if you do not know 100% what is going on. All it takes is reading the wrong email in an unpatched email program, or viewing a corrupt webpage in a vulnerable web browser, or even leaving your non-firewalled machine up when someone/somevirus portscans it looking for the latest exploit on a service you are running an exploitable version of knowingly or not.

Tm

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, ''can't get trojans'' was too strong, but hardly worth pedantically jumping on.

when some random exe tries to open ports and send out data when you reboot, at least you'll think to yourself 'now why did that happen, wait I downloaded that exe'

I'm not saying they stop everything, especially if the user is an idiot. but they help, and they do no harm (if configured right). and however stupid the user, when faced with

''trojan version 0.1 beta.exe is trying to acces the internet. click always allow (not reccommended) or deny(reccommended)''

is the perfect thing to confront them with. at least it gives them a chance, and is a million times better than the nothing the anti-firewall brigade advocate.

I really can't understand why you assume I don't already know all the obvious things you wrote. Oh, it's probably because you're in the networking/it/security field.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Glad you don't work in IT at my company.

What's left for people to hack? C'mon, do you think the only way programs make it on to your computer is thru file sharing and email?

Secondly, I don' know what kind of junk firewall you are talking about, but a firewall worth anything will not respond to replying requests if configured correctly. It too will remain silent. If you try and close the ports yourself instead of using a firewall, then you will get all those junk "Hey lookie me I am here" packets sent back to the originator.

Re:Firewall, schmirewall

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bother talking to him. it's bizarre, but nowadays on /., browsing at 0 gives much more informative content than browsing at +5.
it wasn't always so, honest. only the ACs seem to know what they're talking about anymore, and they make the best jokes too.

I'm not dead yet...

[TimTheFoolMan]

...I'd like to go for a walk, and please spell my name correctly.

Gran-a-telli

Tim

Re:FCKGW-RHQQ2-.....

[CobaltBlue612]

You can download the patch, but you realise that live windows updating and the BITS/Auto-Update features still dont, and wont work without a genuine key? :)

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[CobaltBlue612]

And this very arogant approach to technology is one of the reasons that *NIX leads by code, and nothing more. Microsoft long ago took the stance that people (and by people, I implicly mean that anyone who reads Slashdot would not fit into the generalized category of normal users) don't give a flying fuck how it works, they want one button and a satisfying click or beep at the end of it all. If Linux could offer a viable user experience, while still retaining its advantage in technology, then you'd have a brilliant case that Microsoft couldn't answer any time soon. However, the complacance demonstrated day in day out by the bulk of OSS projects is allowing Microsoft to stand up, say "Lets fix the code", and then sell the concept through the standard interfaces. Microsoft will have an easier time closing the gap too, since they have just gained all the relevent experience in writing both secure code (They've got it on the brain too as of late) and they've been making damn good UI's for decades. Its ironic, but the fact of the matter is that unless the OSS community as a whole makes a unified, concerted effort to make the experience practical for people in the same way Microsoft is, there will be machines on every desk, but few of them will run Linux. -SG

You're kidding right?

[paragon_au]

"I don't particularly care for the pop-up blocker and I can't imagine that most users will care for it either."

The most annoying thing EVERY SINGLE ONE of my friends complains abount are pop-ups + adware.

There aren't many occasions when you want a pop-up to happen without you clicking on something to trigger it. And if there is something you do want, it'll take a 10second search of help to find out you have to hold down a key while the site loads to allow pop-ups.

They will work.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS stopped enforcing that crap on WU5 last week.

And even if they did enforce it the keys would still work because they have a PID with 640.

After all...

[rd_syringe]

After all, Linux kernels never get patches and updates. Please.

Re:FCKGW-RHQQ2-.....

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong as the AC has said...please do your homework and know your facts ARE facts before you spout your utter BULLSHIT misinformation you fucking idiot

Bigger than that

[PPGMD]

It's bigger than that. The ISO image on the MSDN subscriber website is 475.35 MB.

What I found entertaining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this mirror...

web01.genmay.net WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe 272.39M Search 08/09/2004 ...on filemirrors.com links to the www.goat.cx site. heh

Thanks!

[rd_syringe]

Now I definitely won't have to actually pay for this software. Information wants to be fr33.

Signed,
Pirate

Slashdotters put on your techsupport hats for F&am

[elhaf]

While this release IS more secure, the automatic firewall will break virtually any networking feature that they might use, such as P2P, chat tools, file sharing, etc. Be prepared for a lot of "hey, son, how come I can't find my other computer anymore?" type questions.

Almost nobody will download it! 250MBs?!?!

[rolling_bits]

I hope that it's worth to those that will download it, but most people, I guess, won't download it for several reasons. Damn!

Re:Almost nobody will download it! 250MBs?!?!

[TheAwfulTruth]

Through windows update it will be 75 to 90 megs as the DL items will depend on the computer configuration.

On anything above dial-up, this is not a big deal. Dial-up users though...

Windows Move Maker included?? WTF!!

[GoatSucker]

It's so generous of Microsoft to bundle their crappy Movie Maker with SP2. I though Service Packs were supposed to contain fixes only?

From: Windows Movie Maker 2.1 is installed on your computer when you install Windows XP Service Pack 2....


Windows Movie Maker 2.1 is installed on your computer when you install Windows XP Service Pack 2

View products that this article applies to.

INTRODUCTION
When you install Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) on your computer, Microsoft Windows Movie Maker 2.1 is also installed on your computer.

MORE INFORMATION
Windows Movie Maker 2.1 includes updates to Group Policy. Windows Movie Maker 2.1 also includes updates that may help improve the security of your computer. For additional information about Windows Movie Maker, visit the following Microsoft Web site: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemake r/default.mspx

Re:Windows Move Maker included?? WTF!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the windows movie maker is pretty nice. Maybe you didn't need it. But it is not "crappy", it works quite well. It also installs WMP 9 and .NET 1.1. Pretty much everything from the windows update site.

This'll make distributing .NET apps a lot nicer. Read: "even posible".

Re:Windows Move Maker included?? WTF!!

[Al Dimond]

I'm sure Movie Maker is great, but that doesn't mean I have any use for it and doesn't mean I have any use for WMP 9. Or, frankly, .NET 1.1 at this point.

Is it possible to do the update without installing these things? If so, then I'm not bitching. If not, then, yes, this is a bitchy post.

Win98SE more secure out of the box?

[bach37]

Interesting note:

Win98SE out of the box: 19 critical updates
WinXP Pro out of the box: 59 critical updates

Re:Win98SE more secure out of the box?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 98 SE had a VERY short lifespan and was in fact a service pack to Windows 98. To be fair you should be comparing all exploits of the entire Windows 98 line from the start to the XP line. (Or maybe Windows 98SE with Windows XP SP1)

We need this but never needed it anyway

[inkswamp]

Let me get this straight. When I've made the mistake in the past of arguing the silly issue of Windows vs. some other platforms, Windows users will claim that the system is perfectly secure the way it is and there's nothing seriously wrong with Windows and blah blah blah....

And yet this update is actually making headlines, and I'm watching Windows users scramble for it like it's bread and water after a long trek in the desert.

"Yes," said the man standing next to the ocean. "I know I'm on fire, but I'd rather wait for someone to come along with a fire extinguisher. I'm perfectly fine as I am, thankyouverymuch."

Re:We need this but never needed it anyway

[Zed2K]

I wouldn't say anyone is "scrambling" for it. The people that are, are in such a small minority that it doesn't really matter.

Personally I'm gonna wait and see what it breaks which should be known in a few days.

Re:We need this but never needed it anyway

[inkswamp]

Great. I get modded as "flamebait" for making an observation and backing it up, i.e., this update is actually making headlines. Go look at http://news.com.com/ ("Slow road to XP update.")

When was the last time an operating system update actually made headlines? All I was doing was pointing out that so many people claim that Windows is perfectly fine as is, and yet there's an awful lot of hoopla for just an OS update. Am I mistaken in noting that? Am I trying to cause problems by pointing that out? I've been on Slashdot for several years and this phenomenon of being modded flamebait or troll because someone disagrees has increased fairly dramatically.

Some folks around here are wound a little too tight, IMO.

(Waiting for this one to be modded off-topic.)

Bad news for Firefox and other OSS alternatives?

[wan-fu]

I definitely agree with a lot of sentiments here that SP2 is going to help Windows security. We should (hopefully) have a lot fewer clueless lusers opening up malicious e-mail attachments, grabbing spyware, etc. However, I think this all comes as a big blow to OSS. My friend recently 'obtained' (we'll say through MSDN) a copy of XP with SP2 slipstreamed. Suffice to say, the new security checks are suffocating.

He downloaded some nVidia drivers and tried to run them. Immediately an alert box came up saying that the application wasn't signed and if he would allow it. Then he wanted to surf the web and opened up IE. When he discovered that the new version has no tabbed browsing he said, "fsck this" and quickly proceeded to mozilla.org. Upon clicking the win32 binary download link for Firefox, what comes up? Another alert box along the lines of: "This looks like dangerous software. It could be a virus. Are you sure you want to download it?" Then, it's not very intuitive that you have to click this little strip at the top of the browser window to actually be able to download the executable. Then, after downloading, of course, another box pops up because the binary isn't properly signed.

Luckily, my friend and I both know how to use computers fairly well so we had no problems with this. But for the people who are going to start relying on these alert boxes for better security, I think this is going to be a set back for adoption of OSS. I can imagine a geek telling his non-geek friend (yes, geeks can have non-geek friends) to get a copy of [better open-source alternative] only to turn it into either a hassle to install (because of all the figuring out how to let Windows download and install it) or have the non-geek scared off because of all the warnings.

SP2 over SP2 RC2

[anotherjosh]

Has anyone tried installing the final release of SP2 over SP2 RC2?

Re:SP2 over SP2 RC2

[newtronic]

Yes, it appears to have worked ok, but I've only got about an hour in it. But the install itself didn't complain.

Re:It fixes the holes, but does it break the fixes

[rikkards]

I have Ad Aware, Spybot and Firefox and no difference than before.

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a mission. It's a choice.

Official Microsoft download link

[illogic]

Here's the real download from the M$ website... it's the full administrator version:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en

I found this link through windowsbeta.microsoft.com, which let me sign up even though I have no valid reason to do so. Enjoy!

Network Install version, download from Microsoft

[iokui]

You can download the Network Install version of SP2 from:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/winxpsp2

Click on the "Download and Deploy Service Pack 2 to Multiple Computers" link.

Warez File Server

[dicepackage]

Did anyone notice that installing SP2 on a pirated copy by default enables something called "Warez File Server" in the firewall settings.

Re:Warez File Server

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what happened was that you have a program called "Warez File Server" on your machine that was detected by the firewall.

Looks like you should have been using one all along!

Re:Warez File Server

[sqrt(2)]

What kind of idiot script kiddie makes there trojan run a process called "Warez File Server"?

Re:Pop Up Blocker is a Bad Thing (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, insanely selfish aren't you?

IBM is spreading some FUD on this SP

[xutopia]

IBM goes slow on XP update

Re:IBM is spreading some FUD on this SP

[angrykeyboarder]

I find it odd that IBM's in-house PCs aren't running OS/2....

Intel doesn't even have segments any more

[Anonymous Coward]

They have segment registers, but not really segments. That went out with the 286.

And there is no reason you have to mark code as code before setting the CS to point to it. It would be smart to flush out the write behinds in the cache, this isn't a part of the user mode of execution environment on the x86, so there's no way to do it on a processor-independent basis.

So it falls to the operating system to make this capability to prepare a data area for execution available. And I have no idea if Windows does. I bet XPSP2 does, but have no idea if it did before. Apps will rev, you can be sure of that.

Direct link to file on Microsoft's site

[Mustang Matt]

From people in the know...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&Displa yLang=en

Download location for Service Pack 2

[AlexReborn]

I didn't see a specific location already posted, so I apologize if this is redundant. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en

Re:Bad news for Firefox and other OSS alternatives

[gl4ss]

they will be having that problem with every bit of software though...

they'll soon discover how they can live without new software every now and then or learn that those warnings "mean nothing, they come up all the time".

oh and a shitload of calls to ms's helplines!

Re:Slashdotting the Internet? Yeah sure

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of them are probably too busy with downloading content otherwise blocked by parental control programs

oh wait that's likely to take even more bandwith !

qed

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[mahdi13]

Yes, my original post was response to a flamebait AC about it being better then recompiling the kernel for updates.

I responded to flamebait with flamebait, at least I offered an example.

If there is a kernel flaw and we want to fix it in Linux, we can simply apply a quick and simple patch and recompile the kernel. With Windows, they hold onto these things until they have enough to offer a "Service Patch" (or the critical ones get put out as 'hot fixes').
The real main difference with an SP is that they wait until they have enough patches for everything and then roll them all out at once. Which is not a bad thing, but they usually end up being huge like SP2 and looks like 'too little too late' to many people. With Linux there are updates and patches everyday because nothing is centralized, it is completely distributed. There is no "one person" to look to for patches.

In some views this distribution is a bad thing because then you need to be looking all over the place to know what needs to be updated. MS does this by themselves and I'm sure that their people work VERY hard on the fixes and testing. I have nothing against MS workers and I know they work very hard.

But that doesn't mean the people that work on open source do not work hard also. The only real difference is that they have an open policy and allow others to look at and help fix the code. This is something that MS can not afford to do with their business model, which is not evil, just not as many people can contribute.

Why must people bash Linux when MS does something good? Probably the same reason people bash MS when Linux does something good. They are two totally different business models and have different ways of doing things that does not work well with the other groups.

I have high hopes that SP2 will make my Windows admin tasks easier (less spyware/malware), but still put the core of my work in UNIX/Linux systems.
Use what you feel necessary to use, but don't flame people for their own decisions.

IBM Says don't got there!!

[wizzy403]

IBM is telling their customers NOT to deploy -- that it is unstable and can wreck systems. Computerworld Article

Re:IBM Says don't got there!!

[wizzy403]

Why is it a troll to point out that IBM is telling people not to download/install this SP because it is unstable, with a link to an article in Computerworld backing it up??? Mods on crack...

Re:IBM Says don't got there!!

[cubic6]

It's called being wrong. If you read the article, IBM is telling it's *employees* not to install SP2. Very large difference. Some of IBM's internal software needs to be fixed, so they aren't patching until their software is ready.

Download link

[Ececheira]

If you want to download the entire SP complete network install (rather than just the 60-80 megs you may need), you can now get it here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a

Re:Sp2 Rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hardly call the Windows UI "damn good". In fact, I would say that it is a horrid UI, with many many problems.

XPLite on SP2

[sewagemaster]

hey, looks like XPLite supports SP2 too. Say bubye to Windows File Protection (WFP), IE and OE! :D

sp2 rc2

[chigun]

i installed sp2 about a month ago when it was in RC2 form. is there any difference between that release and now? should i uninstall that release and get this one or are the differences negligible?

Re:sp2 rc2

[TheAwfulTruth]

Suppose;ly there is about 30 MB of differences between RC2 and the release. Probably bugs and compatibility problems or futher recompiles. I'd update just to prevent future problems even if you weren't experiencing any right now.

If you use the windows update, I think you will only have to DL the 30 MB and not the full 75-90.

Get it direct from microsoft

[bartman1847]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en But as other people have stated, why waste bandwidth and download this install. Only people who can find this useful is who have to install it on more then one machine...

Do what!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to give MS kudos on this one.

For doing the right thing for once? Gawd how brainwashed we have become. MS does one right thing and we are to compliment them for it?

How about when they start doing the right thing all the time then you give out the kudos ok?

Official release from Microsoft...

[daveschroeder]

...now posted:

Info: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/winxpsp2

Direct download: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935 -SP2-ENU.exe

Re:Official release from Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, what would cost MS more, their bandwidth by downloading it, or the cost of the CD and postage if they send it to me.

It's publicly available from Microsoft now.

[Henk Poley]

It's publicly available from Microsoft now. English and German Windows XP:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx? Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en

Big File....

[dstarkey]

I wanted to let you know that the file in full is 475.3MB. I'm downloading it right now.

It's publicly available from Microsoft now [bis]

[Henk Poley]

English and German Windows XP SP2

OK a data point and some information

[TheAwfulTruth]

First, over the weekend I installed SP2 on 5 machines ranging from a laptop to a brand new machine to an old XP install with more hardware and software than can be imagined attached to it and even an OLD XP machine that was an upgraded 2k machine and have had no problems at all so far.

Both the firewall and the popup blocking actually work far better than I had been expecting. I was plesently suprised. (Though watch out for the inevitable ZA/Norton monopoly lawsuits!)

Second, people seem to be having difficulty with the "Security Center" "Alerts" that place an icon in the tray.

This suprises me as the answer to this problem pretty much stares you in the face upon reboot and if anyone is going to be curious about how the security center works and poke around at the various buttons, it should be anyone that posts to /.

Anyway to get rid of the icon do this:

1) Open the Security Center control panel
2) Click on "Change the way secuirty center alerts me"
3) Uncheck any alert options that you do not want to know about. No anti-virus installed? Turn off the alert, etc. Look! No more tray icon!

Re:OK a data point and some information

[NetNifty]

In RC2 the firewall still let programs access the internet or network until you pressed the "dont let it use the internet" button - definatly an issue imo, but hopefully fixed in the final release.

Re:OK a data point and some information

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, all I've seen is popups that say "Do you want to allow this program to access the internet" (paraphrased).

MS site provides full SP2 400+ KB/sec

[RabidPuppetHunter]

I am getting 400+ KB/sec download of the full SP2 from the Microsoft site here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935 -SP2-ENU.exe

I wanted the full download version for when I need to rebuild my system (a ritual every 6 months).

I do not see a need to take any risks with bit torrents, the download speed with a cable modem is less than 10 minutes. Doubt there will many complaints with that. Dial up users may need to get the CD or ask a friend for the full SP2.

Re:Think about new ways to harm our country

[Anonymous Coward]

President gaffes in terror speech

Is this the patch...

[robot captain]

...that makes it fun?

How do I do a clean upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

After we convinced IT to upgrade to some *nix boxes at work the suits decommissioned some pc's and sold them to us "as is" for home use. As a result, I'm in posession of a 100% legal copy of XP but don't have a cd or manual or any physical way to *prove* it's legal. What I want do to is do a fresh install of XP + SP2 to remove all the gunk that builds up with separate updates and hotfixes, but I know the machine's going to ask me for a serial and product id or some sort of nonsense. Can anyone point me towards where on my current system I can find all the numbers I'll need to do a clean install? I don't need a keygen or anything, just something that will tell me what I'm currently using.)

(And that *will* work, right? I'm no Windows h4x0r but I figure using a warezed slipstream of XP with my legitimate code/serial/whatever should magically become a legit copy, right? And yes, I posted AC because I wouldn't believe me either...)

Re:How do I do a clean upgrade?

[TheAwfulTruth]

If your company followed the "rules" the computer case will have a sticker on it (usually on the back) with the "Product Key" on it.

If not, there are tools on the net for sucking the Product Key out of a working copy of XP so you can wipe and reinstall it. Google for it.

Re:How do I do a clean upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If your company followed the "rules" the computer case will have a sticker on it (usually on the back) with the "Product Key" on it.

They did, and as this laptop was used in a tools-and-flying-metal department there's not a readable bit of it left. (Hence the "as-is" on the sale.) So all I need is a product key and I'm good to go? Time to experiment!

Off to dig up a key-finding-thingamabob...

Re:Slashdotters put on your techsupport hats for F

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it doesn't, only if you are running a server (ok p2p) but the firewall is very helpful about asking if you want to allow certain programs to run or not. At least one /. poster has even found a backdoor warez file trading server on his machine that he didn't know was there, though he still didn't realize what it was and thought that SP2 had installed it :)

So yeah, with THAT kind of mentality, SOME help will be needed, but not nearly as bad as you seem to be thinking.

Link to microsoft download

[DoubleDownOnEleven]

Here's the full IT install, from the MS website:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?di splaylang=en&FamilyID=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E36 8D3CDB5A

Re:It fixes the holes, but does it break the fixes

[John Sully (I hate a]

I haven't had any problems with Ad-Aware and SbyBot. The google toolbar works fine, although the popup blocker included with the new version of IE6 works better. I just disabled the popup blocking in the goolge toolbar. You should not need a software firewall solution since SP2 includes a good one. I use Norton AV with one of my systems and McAfee with the other. Both seem to work fine.

I've been using SP2 RC2 for over a month now and have been quite happy with it. There are a ton of improvements which block holes in IE and OE and seems to be locked up tighter than Guinivere's chastity belt out of the box. This is all good stuff.

IBM won't do it yet

[JLSigman]

ComputerWorld magazine says that IBM has told it's employees not to install it, because it hasn't been tested enough.

Re:IBM won't do it yet

[andrewweb]

No. Because they haven't verified it to work with all of the business-critical applications.

Re:IBM won't do it yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand why IBM is the gold-standard of who everyone trusts on this.

IBM is not like Bob's Office Supplies, they deal with all kinds of crazy in-house, third-party, and customer-supplied applications that aren't always written with firewall interference in mind.

Individual systems will certainly vary, but nearly all IBM-standardized stuff already has a firewall, virus scanner and browser add-ons installed. Why rush to install SP2 when it won't even give any direct benefit?

Here's how to get it quick

[caspper69]

Ok guys, this is the quickest and easiest way (especially if on broadband) to get SP2. Get newsleecher, then go to alt.binaries.wares.ibm-pc.ms-beta, and download the WindowsXP-SP2-2180-ENU-FINAL files (there's 28 of them). Yes, one small file is missing (about 22k). The file ships with a Parchive parity file (.PAR2) to reconstruct and/or correct any data that did not come through. You can get the PAR2 verifier from here. Now what do you do? Well, you will be left with 19 .rar files, so UNRAR them!! You will be left with a filename slightly different from the original, but this is in fact the correct build. MD5 Sum and crc32 verified with fsum (59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7 & 046F12B1, respectively). Have fun! And best of all?? If you're on broadband, it's fast, especially since you're not leaving the local provider's network (assuming your provider hosts their own news servers).

By the way, I do not normally get software this way, but on Friday it was my mission to get SP2, and get the real one. This worked and was fairly simple. If you've just got to have it, you can use this method. It is the correct service pack, and it works fine! Hope this helps..

Re:Here's how to get it quick

[angrykeyboarder]

or you could probably get it on one of the P2P networks with less hassle.

Re:Here's how to get it quick

[caspper69]

Well, that's *sorta* true. If you noticed, I went on a mission on Friday, just about an hour after I found out that SP2 had been released. I could not be sure that what I was getting on a P2P network was in fact a true copy (and as a matter of fact, I didn't see *any* copies), while I had several sources on various message boards verify the one in the newsgroup. So, while it looks like a pain, it really is just three steps, since the newsleecher software was pretty straightforward, the verifier took about 4 seconds to run, and WinRAR extracted all 19 parts in one step. By now, three days later, more people have had the opportunity to d/l the file, and obviously there are a ton of torrents and I'm sure it's all over Kazaa, etc.

Just another method that happens to be very fast, although you are correct that there are easier ones. This was for the hardcore user who wants the file quickly and is not able to get through to MS, doesn't have good d/l on a torrent, or who cannot get decent speed from a P2P app.

250 mb is nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a Windows patch that was over a gig in size. Well worth it though.

http://www.apple.com

Re:250 mb is nothing!

[sqrt(2)]

Oh cool, will it run on my machine with an AMD processor? Oh? It wont? Well then maybe you need to STFU.

Re:250 mb is nothing!

[sqrt(2)]

Looks like an Apple fanboy had mod points.

Akamai...

[Henk Poley]

No, it's Akamai that has wicked bandwidth...

Re:Missing features...Wait... do you use IE?

[Tmack]

You dont understand TCP and firewalls do you? IE is not a webserver, and unless your machine is compromised to act as such, or you set one up yourself (apache or IIS), you do not even use port 80. Web requests are sent via some unprivlidged high-level port (well above 1024, usually close to the high end 65535), targeting port 80 of the server. The server responds by sending data back down the pipe created by the request. In fact, your NAT firewall does not need ANY ports open for incoming requests for simple web browsing. The ONLY time open ports are needed is for services you wish to provide to the outside world to use, such as webcam, ftpserver, webserv, email server, etc. and some games that are too dumb/old to work with NAT. IE is vulnerable to sites you go to and content you view with it, with or without a firewall. XP itself has other services actively listening on other ports (by default), and it is those services that are generally vulnerable if not turned off or firewalled. SP2 works to fix/turn off/firewall those vulnerablities, and patch IE so that something as simple as viewing a corrupted web page will not infect the whole PC. After using a known vunerability in IE a while back to make a demo page that by viewing would write a file to the viewer's C: drive, and launch 4 different apps, I switched 100% to opera and convinced several other people to as well. The same vunerability was one MS declared not their problem and as far as I know is still a bug in IE (deals with what security zone history pages are treated).

Tm

HELP PLEASE

[Roark Meets Dent]

When I run the service pack 2, it unpacks its files and then says: "Could not verify the integrity of the file update.inf. Please verify the cryptographic service is running." It IS running, I even tried restarting it and no luck. What to do?

Re:HELP PLEASE

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get it? The DL may have gotten corrupted. Try again (be sure to get it from MS direct if you didn't already)

Now released to the general public

[NilsK]

You can download now without any login required from MS.
Guess this will be breaking down within minutes...

Nils

BT Clients?

[bi_boy]

BitTorrent clients don't automatically do MD5 verification as they download?

Re:BT Clients?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's SHA1. Besides, if somebody wants to plant a backdoor, BT's SHA1 won't catch anything. That's where external, verified sources come in (ie, the MD5 on Neowin).

Re:Pop Up Blocker is a Bad Thing (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax you've got Adblock. You do have AdBlock, righ?

Direct download from MS

[emarkp]

It's up on Microsoft's website now. Go here and click on the download link. Or if you just want the .exe link, here it is.

That's why...

[tkrotchko]

I agree with you in principle, but that's why you grab an MD5 and compare.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Interestingly, it's 272.4mb, not 266.01mb as the 'leaked' release was..."

the "266MB" was in fact 272.4MB it had to do with how you report the size.

And it was never claimed to be "leaked". It was not widely distributed until today.

Just installed it at work....

[iXiXi]

Just pulled the 450+ mb ISO off of msdn and installed it. Seems to be working ok at the moment. Tthere aare ssome llittle tthings err wtf was that? err...uninstall.. hehe

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YUO ARE T3H FUNNY~!!!!!!!!!! Micro$$$oft suxx0rz!!~!1

Question about which file to download

[freshtonic]

I went to http://www.filemirrors.com and they have two seperate files that look like the service pack: xpsp2_RTM_ENU.exe WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe does anybody know whaty the difference is? which one is the official one? (if any)....?

SUPER FAST DOWNLOAD SITE OVER 1 MB/s

[firebeyer]

WINDOWS XP SP2 FINAL DOWNLOAD NOW !!!! www.firebeyer.com

Available now!!

[JarrodMJ]

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=049c9dbe-3b8e-4f30-8245-9e368d3cdb5a&Displa yLang=en

Does the firewall work now?

[ScarletEmerald]

I wonder if this update fixes the stupid problem described in 323009 - Internet Connection Firewall Does Not Filter or Provide Firewall Services During Startup and Shutdown. I thought this was supposed to be fixed in SP2, but I don't see it in 811113 - List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Re:Does the firewall work now?

[Frizzle Fry]

Yes, the firewall is now active during startup and shutdown.

Formatting

[CustomFort]

(Forgot to use HTML tags, and hit Submit instead of preview.)

The one on MSDN includes debugging symbols and the new .NET Framework. The network Install Version (Full for Slipstreaming/deployment) is about 266 MB. It's checksums are:

MD5 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

SHA1 33A8FEF60D48AE1F2C4FEEA27111AF5CECA3C4F6

CRC32 046F12B1 The Sum for the MSDN version is:

MD5 94276421fa963122a4e434d3b14fdc01

Re:Think about new ways to harm our country

[Richard Dick Head]

Ok, while off topic posts are being marked informative...

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

What W meant was that we're thinking of ways they can harm us, not that we're thinking of ways we can harm us - it is pretty obvious, though it could throw you off. Yes, he isn't the best public speaker, but that isn't something we all don't all know already.

Anyway, to include at least something on topic, I a pleased to report that SP2 breaks Netscape 1.22. I had it installed for kicks for testing web pages in something ludicrously old, and it don't work no more :(

Direct link for German SP2

[cyxxon]

The German SP2 can be found here.

The accompanying website is here.

272391kB = 266.01mb.

[chopper749]

Interesting, indeed.

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ViewKeyXP.htm

[Anonymous Coward]

ViewKeyXP

Re:SP2 - Errata

[FlutterVertigo(gmail]

Sorry - sumimasen deshita.

This: 272'391M
Should be: 272'391K

Methinks the youngins have forgotten NT4 SP6

[HalfOfOne]

Not sure, but methinks the youngins have forgotten NT 4 SP6. Since then the old-timers like to have the entire i386 directory plus the whole patch file locally.

Call me crazy, but when I want the patch, I want the *whole* patch, so it doesn't announce a dependency available for download *after* breaking the TCP/IP stack again.

Just a thought,
jb

Direct Microsoft link...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I retarded or is this NOT a direct download from Micrsoft? http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935 -SP2-ENU.exe
For service pack 2 build 2180

This is why Slashdot's misreporting is a bad thing

[rd_syringe]

For some reason, people are incredibly willing to believe without question absolutely anything printed on this site, whether in an article summary or a random post.

So, that RC2 was soooo unstable (3 of 5 machines wouldn't boot afterwards) and now the release is stated as "stable" ?

No, it was 3 out of 5 machines at some online magazine's website whic was already debunked as a faulty configuration. But, Slashdot linked to it with the big headline, and now everybody thinks that it is universal truth that SP2 RC2 only booted up 2 out of 5 machines even though it happened in one instance at one company with the faulty configuration. Yours is already the third regurgitation of that false meme I've seen in Slashdot discussions, and on Slashdot, when things get repeated over and over, they magically become "fact."

Few people had problems with RC2. Actually, everyone who had it installed was already protected from the Download.Ject trojan and never needed to download the interim patch update that Microsoft put out.

The point is, don't believe something just because it had a flamebait Slashdot headline and you once saw it repeated in some random "+5 Funny" Slashdot post.

Hold up there.

[IncohereD]

You dont understand TCP and firewalls do you?

I think you miss the point that firewalls can be set to disallow outgoing connections as well. And allowing outgoing port 80 from IE is relatively dangerous, as the grandparent implied.

Smarminess alert!

[IncohereD]

a) Are the people with pirate XP copies actually going to pay for XP if they can't upgrade? No. They'll just not upgrade, and possibly become part of a botnet, which ruins things for everybody. If they were going to pay for it, they would have done so already.

b) I've seen your sig for days, and still don't get it. How did id "lose" money when people downloaded a program they weren't yet selling? A lot of those people probably just wanted to be the first to play it, and bought it anyway. Or wanted to see how it would perform on their hardware before they bought it. Or else would have just waited to play it at a friend's house to try it before they bought it. Or if they weren't going to play it online just borrow it from said friend and installed it (the CD Key thing wouldn't stop them if they weren't playing online). And hell, maybe some of the downloaders just needed megs to get on their favourite DirectConnect hubs.

I'm not saying pirating software is okay, and I bought Doom 3 and Mandrake. But saying 100% of illegal downloads translate into direct losses for a corporation just has no basis in reality. At all. Your hyperbole weakens your case.

Most important feature: Delta Compression

[cperciva]

For all of those who have been complaining about the large update size (90MB for a single online system; 250MB for everything), there is good news in SP2: Future updates will be much smaller. One of the new features in WMI 3.0 (which is bundled in SP2) is Microsoft's "Binary Delta Compression".

Now, while I know how BDC works, I don't know exactly how effective Microsoft's implementation is; however, my own binary diff code is providing an average 67-fold compression for the security updates used by FreeBSD Update right now. (In fact, the security patches for any supported FreeBSD release can fit onto a floppy disk.)

Microsoft's a year behind FreeBSD here, but I sure hope everybody else isn't a year behind Microsoft... otherwise, Windows users will be downloading 100-200 kB security patches once a month while they laugh at Linux users who have to download 10 MB patches.

No, SCO code in Linux won! (c.f. Caldera)

[Xtifr]

There's been SCO code in Linux for years, and it's never been hidden. Do a "grep -i caldera" to find tons of files with code from SCO. Of course, if the poll had asked about code from SCO but not openly contributed by SCO, that might have been a different matter! :)

Mirror

[Johan_Tayn]

www.files.third-core.org/xp_sp Download there and then get on the torrent @ http://sp2torrent.com/index.php .

Re:Bad news for Firefox and other OSS alternatives

[PingPongBoy]

I pity da fool who gets a virus using SP2

MS CRM failed. Before there was no problem.

[Futurepower(R)]

You missed the point. The Microsoft CRM software dialed the number. Before Microsoft got their own CRM software, problems like those described never happened.

Re:MS CRM failed. Before there was no problem.

[LardBrattish]

Gotcha, I see what you mean. Basically M$ replaced an existing package that worked well (but we don't know how well it worked from the internal perspective) with an internally written package that doesn't work as well.
This sort of error should find its way back to the development team and in the end the M$ package will be good enough & it'll be worth the cost to them of developing it.
Think how badly they'd have been reamed on /. if they had continued to use a competing product (see also the hotmail debacle)
That sort of sounds pro-M$ but I'm trying to be fair here. They'd be damned if they didn't use their own package & they're being damned because they did. Naturally working for the great Satan they're eternally damned anyway but you know what I mean ;)

Won't install on localized XP versions

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know if it's been said yet, but won't install on XP versions other than English. So if you have a localized version of XP, you might as well save yourself the download...

sense of humour in the MS camp ???

[rixster]

Did you notice that the "fixing" program was called "ChangeVLKey2600.vbs" ...

August Security Updates...

[prandal]

We'll find out soon enough. Any bets on there being any post-SP2 patches in the August Security updates which will be released later today?

250 megs?

[lawrenqj]

I'm not sure that the Windows Update download is going to be 250 megabytes:
"DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update..."

Does anyone know what kind of a download size the Windows Update is going to be? I'm wondering if it's going to be worth throwing this on cd or if we should just use the windows Updater.

BTW, does anyone know how a few registry changes could possibly take up 250 megs?

Grouse, Grumble, Grouch

[jo42]

> 2004-08-04 18:54:31 Windows XP SP2 Release Imminent (IT,Windows) (rejected)

Hmphf.

"Microsoft eventually gets it right."

[Futurepower(R)]

It's different than that. Version 1.0 releases of Microsoft products often have obvious mistakes. Microsoft is very, very poor at testing, in my experience. Microsoft's new CRM software trashed their database! Or, it was not able to query the database correctly. They should have found that mistake before trying to use the software on their customers.

Someone once said that Microsoft's motto is, "The whole world is our beta test site." In my experience, Microsoft is very sloppy. Steve Jobs of Apple said, "Microsoft eventually gets it right."