Complete List of Bugs Fixed in SP2

callipygian-showsyst writes "Microsoft has published the complete list of bugs fixed in Service Pack 2. They range from the obscure like: 'File Appears to Be Deleted Although You Do Not Have Permissions on the OS/2 Warp4-Based Server' to the serious-sounding: ' Stop error message on a blue screen when you transfer data to a USB device in Windows XP'"

Comments

Very long list

[ack154]

This is a giant list of all of the updates, and then links to the KB numbers on the left, so you can read what each one was.

Side note: one of my favorites:

MS03-021: A flaw in Windows Media Player may permit the Media Library to be accessed

At first, I was thinking that it was supposed to do that ... but after reading the KB, it's an ActiveX problem that can allow a webpage to access your media library. Then again, MS has always really vague and stupid titles.

Re:Very long list

[Sharp Rulez]

Is SP2 in the buglist?

Re:Very long list

[NETHED]

827778 You receive a "There was an error updating the Registry" error message when you start Sound Recorder.

Thats a personal favorite of mine. What the hell does sound recorder need to update the registry for?

Re:Very long list

[Anonymous Coward]

To update the list of last accessed files? To save different recording preferences like bitrate, input device, etc?

Re:Very long list

[halowolf]

What the hell does sound recorder need to update the registry for?

Windows XP keeps a list of programs recently run in the registry I believe... hey you asked! :)

Re:Very long list

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the one just above that one.
"Windows XP Does Not Recognize a DVD-RW Disc"
I had to move all the files off of my DVD-RW disks, download a new version of InCD, reformat the disk then load all the files back onto them, resulting in hours and hours of wasted time.
SP2 recognized the disk but would not allow me to transfer any new files to the unallocated portion of the disks. Everything worked just fine before SP2.

Re:Very long list

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a long list, but considering this , this , this , and this , just to name a few in the past few months, it really is quite a small list. /home/AC

Re:Very long list

[wwwgregcom]

The save dialouge also records where the last place saved to is.

Re:Very long list

[johnek]

ok. i would like other peoples opinion here. Would it be possible for a hacker to look through this list and find a combination of exploits to create worm/virus/etc.? Since I definitely won't be installing this until 2.1 due to all of the issues this update causes (even to M$ applications). It's probably safe to assume that most users wont be installing this for a while (or is it?).

Re:Very long list

[westlake]

"A flaw in Internet Explorer may allow an attacker to control your computer."

This is all most people need or want to know about an update.
Care to try your hand at a plain English explanation of a "buffer overflow?"

Re:Very long list

[networkBoy]

Is SP2 in the buglist?

no, but it should be:
"326863:Operating system throttling does not work"
Designed specifically to slow down your OS.
In the KB article they say it deals with overheating CPUs, but what I don't understand is why the OS specifically cares!?! If you have a properly designed heat solution then this should not be an issue. Why is it in the core OS to run slower!

-nB

Re:Very long list

[secolactico]

Why is it in the core OS to run slower!

This is called the 486sx method. Later on, they'll sell you an upgrade with the throttling disabled (Windows XP TURBO!!!).

(yes, mods, it is a joke).

Re:Very long list

[Anonymous Coward]

> If said program crashes, it could corrupt your registry, which is not a good thing.

The registry is transactional for that very reason (hey gconf, you listening?) and it's kept in HKEY_CURRENT_USER, so it won't render your system unbootable. Might make your profile very unhappy tho.

The reason it uses the registry and not a file is so it's kept in the profile. Mind you, the privacy implications of MRU's (ok, I'm thinking pr0n) make me wish it was in the Profiles\Application Data folder instead, then I could grep and delete at will. NTFS is a nice filesystem -- why doesn't windows try using it once in a while?

Re:Very long list

[damium]

Related:
MS03-008: Flaw in Windows Script Engine may allow code to run.

And I thought it was supposed to do that...

Re:Very long list

[iantri]

Laptops.. they throttle the processor to increase battery life..

Re:Very long list

[spacefrog]

Because if the temperatures reach those thresholds, then your 'properly designed heat solution' obviously isn't.

If you have a 'properly designed heat solution' then you should never get throttled or should only be throttled very very little.

This is a case of the OS responding to a condition *prior* to the computer locking up. The Linux kernel has a similar feature.

Re:Very long list

[warrax_666]

Having it in the registry means you know where it is,

That's like saying you know where every configuration file is because it's stored somewhere under '/'.

(Although you do have a point about every program using a different syntax. Using the same syntax does really help all that much because you still have to understand the semantics of what you're changing to screw something up).

Re:Very long list

[LnxAddct]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Most apps use some kind of lib or something to access their configs, that keeps the config to a standard, at least internally to the app. If you have another application that needs to access that config, its usually fairly easy to do so. What your saying is, its good to make it easy for any application to access any other application's configuration. How often do you just randomly pick a registry entry and decide to use it for something? When you write your program you know what you'll need and you predefine the config files or in your case the registry. As long as you know what your accessing and how to access it, nothing else matters. The worse thing about the registry is how easily it becomes corrupted. Also, as far as I know there is no tool bundled with Windows to allow you to edit the registry from the command line. So what do you do when your registry is hosed and you can't boot to a gui? I may be wrong, but I don't beleive there is a way to edit it easily from DOS, and booting into Linux is useless because the registry isn't editable with a text editor or something simple like it should be. The registry is a great idea in theory, but horrible in practice.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Very long list

[Frizzle Fry]

I do in fact know what I'm talking about and I've had to deal with this a lot. Firstly, the way config files are used is not standard. Saying that "Most apps use some kind of lib or something to access their configs" just confirms that they are not all the same. And it isn't true that no one other than original app writer will ever want to change the settings. What if I want to write a script that is going to go through for each use on my system and set some preference? If all of the settings are in the registry, I know ahead of time how to do it (once I look up the names of the relevant keys and values) with standard APIs. With text files, I need to write my own parsing code which I am going to need to change next time I am dealing with settings for a different program. Ugh. What if I sometimes work with the code of different programs that use different standards? Not of these are huge obstacles in practice, but it's a pain and it's just not as good as having everything standardized in one format.

Re:Very long list

[ribond]

as far as I know there is no tool bundled with Windows to allow you to edit the registry from the command line

In Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003 products "reg.exe" is provided for command line registry manipulations.
Ex: reg query HKLM\Software\Microsoft\

To repair the registry:
- Boot to safemode (bang on f8 post-post and before the windows flag pops up, the menu options are there. This loads a minimal system, usually bypassing any badness you've perpetrated and allowing you to prune and update to your hearts content. You can even use System Restore to reteat to a prior (known good) configuration.
- Boot to the recovery console (minor recovery support -- mostly enable/disable services, really).
- ...and the big easy:Insert your OS cd and (when prompted) "press any key". Select the "Repair Installation" option from the second screen to rebuild the registry and system files-- comparable to running an upgrade of Windows from the same version of Windows. It's the most complete solution for repairing your windows installation.

Re:Very long list

[ccalvert]

I consider myself pretty tough on Microsoft, and I particularly don't like the registry, and definitely prefer text files. And contrary to the opinion of the other person who replied to you, there are standard APIs for accessing the values in .INI files or property files.

But nevertheless, I have to say that it is unfair to claim that the Registry is easily corrupted. It can be corrupted, and if it is corrupted, really, really, bad things happen. Nevertheless, it very rarely does get corrupted, and a back up copy is kept, and I believe installed automatically if necessary.

It is fair to say that the registry is a bad idea, and that if it is corrupted the system could completely collapse, making it a serious single point of failure. But it is not fair to say that it is easily corrupted. I'm not sure I've seen a case of a corrupted registry in the last 5 or 6 years, though I did used to see them from time to time back in the good old days.

Of course, if someone has some compelling stories of registry corruption, it would be interesting to hear them. And though I'm sure such stories exist, I bet they are rare.

By the way:

You can add information to the registry from the command line. Create a file with a .REG extension, put the right data in it like this:

- -
REGEDIT

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\TestApp.Application = Delphi Automation Server Test App

- -

Now type:

start myFile.reg

and it goes into the registry.

Final note, .NET programming brings back text files for configuration in the form of .config files. There are standard APIs for accessing their settings. So it looks like even Microsoft is finally admitting that the registry might not have been such a good idea.

- Charlie

Re:Very long list

[nuggetman]

This is why $diety invented the home directory. It's there, I don't understand why app developers refuse to use it. Especially on nix based systems like Linux and OS X, where you just put a .appname folder and put the config files in there and the user doesn't see it unless they want to.

Life would be much easier (especially in the way windows installs programs. On the mac you can juts copy your apps folder over to a new install and they'll all work, try doing that with Program Files)

Re:Very long list

[Thuktun]

Why the heck would you keep that in there? Why not as an XML file somewhere? The last thing you need is something that writes to the registry each time a program is launched. If said program crashes, it could corrupt your registry, which is not a good thing.

Unless every application can only be launched one instance at a time, you'll still need to write code to handle multiple processes trying to read/write at the same time to that XML file. This is what the Registry gives you.

This seems to be a favorite target of Linux advocacy trolls, I've noticed. Nobody says this is the perfect solution, but it gives you a way of storing a hierarchical collection of name/value pairs of various types of data. In that, it works well. Run Sysinternals' RegMon if your curious how often the Registry gets hit for reads and writes. Curiously, to date I've NEVER had to deal with a corrupt registry file.

I love Linux, depending on the distribution. I've used various other *nix systems. I've used VMS for heaven's sake. I've also used Windows and don't mind it too much. I don't get my undies in a knot about specific details of how these operating systems are implemented, I work around them and get my job done.

Re:Very long list

[Erik Hollensbe]

This is understandable, and for the most part I agree with you - however, what data format is best?

When I need to edit a configuration file, I sure as heck don't want to type XML out for my frequently reconfigured application that requires simple directives. Ever mess with Tomcat? Hacking on that configuration scheme is a total nightmare.

However, for something more robust like apache, a more involved configuration is required. Apache's configuration is so right, nothing could make me happier - FOR APACHE. Yes, it's a form of XML (IIRC it uses expat or a modified expat to parse the configuration), but it's hardly strict and rarely cumbersome.

Realistically, when I'm editing /etc/aliases, do I want to do this:

<?xml>
<aliases>
<user name="root">
<to>me</to>
<to>myboss</to>
<to>my coworker</to>
<to>management</to>
</user>
</ali ases>

(yes I know a mailing list would be better served in this example - I am trying to illustrate a point)

or this?

root: me
root: management
root: mycoworker
root: myboss

I'll learn 30,000 configuration formats to prevent the mess in the first example from taking over my system.

The nice thing about Mac OS X, those XML files that are scattered everywhere are almost never touched (at least on my machine) - if they're not configured through the GUI, they're generally some kind of internal data that I don't need to touch - at least, I haven't had to yet.

However, mucking in /etc is commonplace (although OS X does a great job of screwing that up as soon as I touch the GUI again, arg)

As for your program parsing comments, here's a very simple solution:

If you have a program which is 'glue' for multiple programs that use multiple configurations, write a program that parses both formats and creates a third format. If your target programs are decently designed they will mostly likely use one of the following types of configurations:

m4 - which is made to do conversions, writing the rules are daunting at first, but it's just like any other language.

XML - XSLT, XPath, all stuff that is easily available (and I'm sure you already know about)

plain old text files - generally when someone uses the above two their app is sufficiently complex to warrant one, when someone uses this, generally it's simple - if not, the "big" services all have (E)BNF waiting and ready in their RFC's or man pages. Just about anything else can be parsed with two builtins in the perl interpreter: split() and join() (pick another OSS language if that one doesn't suit you - they all have equivalents for reasons that will be left as an exercise to the reader).

In reality the third is the time waster, for obvious reasons. However, once you know how to parse a zone file, sudoers, etc, you don't have to write it again. In reality the ever-changing configurations are the simple ones, the ones that fall into the split() and join() category. In rare cases, you might have to use a regular expression, oh dear.

another thing is important to mention, that is the fact that if you are mucking around in a configuration file for an application so often, generally one of two things are the problem: you need to constantly adjust this program based on technical or business requirements, or your program does not provide ample command line options. In the latter case, perhaps your programming resources could be used to either add the options to the program (libpopt is very easy to use and almost every GNU program uses it, if not, they're probably using getopt(), a little more painful but fairly standard nonetheless), or find one that suits your needs from a configuration perspective - after all, if the author of the program didn't think command line options or a good, easy to edit configuration were important, there's probably a good number of features it's missing anyways.

Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[USAPatriot]

Of the list of slashdot topics, only Microsoft and the Windows icons are of a derogatory and belittling nature.

Why is it so hard that the editors can't use the appropriate icons for them?

It's time this site starts to grow up.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The one for Apple has a huge bite taken out it!

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[dave420]

Indeed. How are people supposed to take Linux seriously when a very large (and very vocal) linux-friendly community uses such childish imagery to describe their competitors. If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Anonymous Coward]

pictures of tux fucking a hooker.

I totally need this for my desktop wallpaper.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[smooth wombat]

If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.

Because everyone knows that geeks wouldn't know what to do with a hooker if they had one anyway.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[aelbric]

Copyright issues?

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[mahdi13]

No, Slashdot can't use Microsoft's logos...MS would sue Slashdot if they did for copyright/trademark infringement!

It's not a geek thing, it's a lawyer thing

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Megaweapon]

It's time this site starts to grow up.

..says the guy with the all caps, boldface sig.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[dave420]

And that means you get away with being immature how, exactly? Or, is this just another really, really good example of the double-standards this site has with Microsoft?

Whatever MS does, good or bad, is branded bad and accepted. Whatever linux does, good or bad, is branded good and anyone who says otherwise is a troll.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[maxwell demon]

Found on planetspace.de:

"Microsoft is not the Borg collective. The Borg collective has got proper networking."

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[nova20]

Of the list of slashdot topics, only Microsoft and the Windows icons are of a derogatory and belittling nature.

I think that the education icon is somewhat belittling... 2+2=5 ?

-nova20

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[gbjbaanb]

How is the Windows icon derogaroty or belittling?

If you look very closely, its either a very nice stained glass window, or each pane is cracked.

I leave the decision of which it is to the reader, who shoudl bear in mind that this is /.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[mobby_6kl]

>>pictures of tux fucking a hooker.
>I totally need this for my desktop wallpaper.

Well you may want to check this out. Not exactly tux fucking a hooker, but still
1) Tux is involved
2) Fucking is involved ;)

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[10Ghz]

And if you go to Redhat.com, they don't call Microsoft "Micro$oft" or something like that. But I bet you can find some pro-Windows fansites/blogs and the like in the net where they use childish phrases to describe Linux and Linux-users.

And besides, Microsoft has called Linux "a toy", "anti-american" and GPL "a virus". Why is that "professional" whereas Slashdots images are not?

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[BenjyD]

This is Slashdot, generally a F/OSS advocacy site. Microsoft is about as opposite in beliefs from the general audience of /. as it is possible to get - they've referred to OSS as a "cancer" and actively try to limit its growth.
Why shouldn't the icons represent the distrust and dislike of MS this has created amongst the /, readership? It's a tongue-in-cheek thing anyway.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[10Ghz]

And that means you get away with being immature how, exactly?

Microsoft calls Linux "a toy". Why isn't that immature?

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[essreenim]

Stop error message on a blue screen when you transfer data to a USB device in Windows XP'
Yes, thankyou for reminding me. What Windows OS or service pack would be complete without it..?

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Mysticalfruit]

Basically, your correct.

Last time I checked we're on the "IN-TER-NET". You know that place that is practially a blackhole of all things immature.

If you were to map the internet like a galaxy, Slashdot would be tucked over in the corner next to the obscene jokes and well stuff involving well hung midgets and horny lonely housewives.

Microsoft could release a patch that just by installing would cure world hunger and shrink maligant tumors and the headline on Slashdot would be "Microsoft distrupts food distribution and healthcare systems worldwide!"

So, in short, if your looking for unbiased punctunal and definitative coverage of the every evolving internet, this is not the place.

If however, your looking for the diatribes of cynical, world weary geeks, who know the whole world is basically built on match sticks and is gleefully waiting for the day the whole place comes tumbling down, you've found it.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Paul Crowley]

Because we fucking hate the bastards! Slashdot is not a corporate news portal - it's still fundamentally a fan-run advocacy site. It's ludicrous to imagine that Slashdot should pretend to be neutral, or mature, about these things

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[GoofyBoy]

This is something a 4 year old child would say.

"Wahhhh, Bobby hit me!! Wahhhh!"

How do you want the Linux community to be percieved? As a "name-calling four year old child" or a mature professional community producing good software quietly and consistantly becoming better and better?

"Gates-as-Borg" icons helps foster which image?

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[loophard]

totally agree. Many /. posters wear me down sometimes with the over-the-top, non-objective windows bashing. No wonder some people have a hard time taking open source seriously. time to act professional.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[FireFury03]

If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.

microsoft.com is a corporate website, slashdot is an unofficial messageboard for geeks...

Besides, if slashdot used the real MS logo they're probably get sued into the ground for infringing the trademark every time someone made a bad comment about MS.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Mateito]

Will this do?

Worksafe... unless your boss is a penguin.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Paul Crowley]

In this context, "advocacy site" is a euphemism for "nakedly partisan site". A site whose purpose is to advocate Linux for those who haven't made a decision is a different thing entirely.

We're never going to disguise the fact that there are a lot of Linux users who fucking hate Microsoft, and we would be wrong to try. Sure, don't use these icons in the slideshow you make for your boss to convince them to switch, but don't insist we all pretend we're still undecided about whether Microsoft are a bunch of bastards who we hate.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[Judg3]

The difference is that Linux people can make a logical arguement, Microsoft salesmen can only make up big lies and format them so stupid people who've been conditoned through schools accept it

Not necessarily true - you say this because you are pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft. But I bet if you went to someone who was the exact opposite, you'd hear the exact opposite.

Besides, I've taken part on meetings where Linux vendor X was telling us to switch from Windows to Linux, and in other companies it's been Microsoft telling us why we should switch from Linux. In both cases the arguments where strong - both for and against.

You might read some of the FUD MS puts on their site, or it's employees state 'off-the-record', but none of that goes on face to face, they are quite understanding of what their compeition is and know how to use that knowledge for their own good.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[aardvarkjoe]

The difference is that Linux people can make a logical arguement,

Maybe some of them can, but they sure don't post to Slashdot.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[ryanvm]

If you go on microsoft.com, they don't call linux "linsux" and have pictures of tux fucking a hooker.

Thanks jerk. I just had to explain to my boss what was so funny. Veeeery professional.

Re:Microsoft and Windows Topics Icons

[plj]

People take these things all too seriously. I have a friend who makes his living as a Linux kernel developer, and he has deliberately used the word "Lelux" in his emails when referring to Linux -- "lelu" is Finnish and means "a toy".

Though you're right in that sense that it is not a good thing when company marketing departments start to use this sort of FUD-style terminology, like that Linux is "anti-american" or Microsoft is "evil empire", or the like. They should generally focus in telling why their product is better and not just throw dirt on their competitors.

Re:First Dupe!

[ack154]

It's not a dupe. The one you listed is SP2's incompatibilities. This is a list of things it fixes.

What I want to see...

[rarose]

is the list of bugs they've *introduced*.

Re:What I want to see...

[The-Bus]

The bugs are right here. Of course, MS is still not calling them bugs.

Re:What I want to see...

[slashrogue]

Score:5, Insightful? If this were a Linux distro getting an update, this would be marked as a Troll or Flamebait. At the very least, Funny would be more appropriate.

Re:What I want to see...

[rarose]

Have you heard of the term "slime"? Slime in the parlance is a "feature" introduced under the version control cover of a "defect".

Let's say I need to fix a simple little bug, a misspelling in a message, which happens to be in source code file "abcd.c". I've got sitting on my hard drive this awesome new feature (at least *I* as the developer think it's cool), but nobody wants to accept it into the product. Hey! It's in file "abcd.c" too! I check in the misspelling fix, along with 2000 lines of new code for my new feature. In version control though it shows up as nothing but "fix a misspelling". That's slime.

With open source you can't do slime... well you could try but it'd never stay undercover. Thus I'd argue this *is* an insightful comment for a non-open source release, but possibly Flamebait for a Linux release.

Re:What I want to see...

[slashrogue]

So *that's* how they sneak in video games into versions of Excel!

Clarification

[Bikini Kill]

This list is all the bugs that have been fixed in Windows XP through SP2, not bug fixes exclusive to SP2.

Oh no!

[asd-Strom]

How can they fix these: "Random "0x0000008E" Error Message on a Blue Screen in Windows XP" and "Your Computer Restarts Unexpectedly When You Press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to Unlock Your Computer" These are the best features in windows!

Re:Oh no!

[EddWo]

That might have been my one.
Bugcheck 0x8E_nt!MiGetProtoPteAddressExtended+12

This is the bug track response from Microsoft for this bug report.


Update on 4/28/2004 10:45:54 AM by Microsoft:
moving to developement database for investigation

Update on 4/29/2004 8:35:35 AM by Microsoft:
Thanks for the report. This issue is currently under investigation. Is there any way we would be able to obtain a full dump of this issue? The minidumps are helpful, but there just isn't enough information in them to determine cause. Let me know either way if this is a possibility, thank you.

Update on 4/29/2004 5:04:22 PM by Microsoft:
Thanks for the assistance. As it turns out there was a bug here that has shipped in every version of NT we've ever released. With your help we've been able to implement a change that will affect all versions of NT from w2k, xp, server 2003 and beyond. Pretty cool.


Sounds like it was a problem in the memory manager. It seems to be fixed now in SP2, I can't reproduce it as easily as before anyway.

I'd like to know a bit more about it. It's quite nice to know I've had some impact on the core kernel code for NT.

Makes you wonder

[suso]

if we're close to the time when the majority of slashdot readers don't know what OS/2 Warp4 is?

Re:Makes you wonder

[garcia]

I'm surprised that Microsoft fixed a bug that would have anything to do with OS/2. If anything I figured they would continue to break interoperability with other OSs (namely in the SMB code).

Re:Makes you wonder

[tehcyder]

OS/2 Warp 4 was released in 1996, at which point the average slashdot reader would have been about 6 or 7...yes, I see what you mean.

Re:Makes you wonder

[TheDredd]

if we're close to the time when the majority of slashdot readers don't know what OS/2 Warp4 is?

Hey! not everybody on /. watches Star Trek

Enough Paper ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, this guy printed the list : http://www.microbizz.nl/buglist.jpg

13 bugs found that could lead to code execution.

[garcia]

Well, out of the many bugs listed as being fixed thirteen were repaired that could cause code execution...

Were these bugs found internally by their team or were these found by outsiders and then patched months later because knowledge was never released?

Not Prompted to Obtain a Digital Rights Management License for Installations Created by Using Sysprep

This was one bug they could have left unfound ;)

The sheer number

[shawn_f]

It is amazing to see a fix of this nature...it is more like an upgrade. I didn't count the number of fixes, but I would venture to say it is in the hundreds, plus all the ones they do not publish. I can't wait to download all 250MB of this patch over my dialup line! should take about 2.75 days

Re:The sheer number

[Hungry Student]

That would be something of a waste of time, considering the official home/windows update available version will be out tomorrow and will be around 80MB. The 250MB is for network admins, not home users, definitely not dialup users.

But...

[FunWithHeadlines]

It's time this site starts to grow up.

But, but, but...then it wouldn't be slashdot any more!

Individual vs Cumulative fixes

[Gentoo Fan]

There are a lot of instances of the word "cumulative" in this list ("Cumulative patch for Internet Explorer..."). I wonder how many true bugs are fixed with this, not just support article entries.

Re:great!

[twoshortplanks]

Like this one?

805 bugs

[MDaniszewski]

Out of an amazing 805(?) bugs listed, this has to be my favorite.

Some programs do not work as expected when large files are opened

Re:805 bugs

[Anonymous Coward]

More obscurity. They should just come out and say "MS Word does not work as expected when large files are opened." In fact skip the 'large' part.

What about usability?

[ciryon]

Are there any fixes in terms of usability or user interface?

Like the damn message that comes up VERY TIME I wake a windoze laptop from sleep: "Hi! You're connected to your wireless network again. The same network as always, but I just wanted to remind you. The signal strenght is excellent. Click me, and I'll disappear. But be sure that I'll return the next time you start or wake your computer!"

I wonder how many suicides are directly related to windows error and/or informational messages.

Ciryon

Re:What about usability?

[Cat_Byte]

HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Exp lorer\Advanced, make entry EnableBalloonTips, set REG_DWORD to 0

Check out no. 825062

[BubbaThePirate]

Bug fix no. 825062.

..."Service Pack 4 Permits You to Remove the Service Pack by Using the Recovery Console".

..."The information in this article applies to:
* Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP4
* Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional SP4
* Microsoft Windows 2000 Server SP4".

Are they intentionally driving up the number of bugs fixed?

Re:Check out no. 825062

[Cat_Byte]

This was probably submitted by a company that enforces pushed fixes. I'm just guessing but I've worked in places where bugs are submitted & fixed and you see some weird stuff that actually makes sense if you know the context.

Last time, the list was not complete.

[Futurepower(R)]

SP1 fixed very serious bugs in Win XP that were not on the SP1 bug list. Also, serious bugs that had been reported a long time before were NOT fixed.

My Favourite

[billimad]

326971 - Operating system does not work

Angry Users Demand Return of "Backdoor" Feature

[tenzig_112]

It looks like SP2 also got rid of some useful PC remoting features [in default mode, anyway].

Here's an excerpt from a recent article on the debacle.

REDMOND, WA- Ever since the release of the long-delayed Service Pack 2 for Microsoft's Windows XP, users have noticed a few things missing from the popular OS. Rather than adding new features to Windows, angry customers say this new "upgrade" takes them away. Specifically, the new default configuration in SP2 inhibits the backdoor software that allowed users to access their personal data data, passwords, and credit card data from a remote computer.

"Just a few years ago, people paid through the nose for the convenience of remotely controlling their PC from home or office," explained long-time Windows user Guy Labelle. "I was thrilled to hear that XP shipped with this functionality built in, and it was a big reason I paid for the upgrade."

XP's original default installation included a popup engine, email generator, and a suite of "spyware" applications that allowed Microsoft technicians to run Scandisk and other maintenance utilities in the background, all of it now gone thanks to SP2.

"XP's WinBackdoor was so user-friendly, in fact, that I didn't have to do anything at all," said Labelle. "I'd just sit back and let other people control my PC for me."

Re:How many months did it take?

[Scoria]

Okay, tell meonce again how many months it took to root out those errors? Some where known for a long time. And I expected a longer list... waaaaay longer!

Modifying a large operating system while attempting not to "break" any end-user configurations is nothing short of a prodigious task.

The modifications were probably developed and committed to the Windows source tree in a relatively short period of time. However, Windows must accommodate a diverse array of configurations, including many that are very "fragile" and obscure. Because of this, the modified build likely endured an extensive testing process, hence the multiple delays.

Re:How many months did it take?

[AgntOrnge]

Why should it be way longer? Maybe you can let us know what reproducable and verifiable bugs they missed.

Resolution

[boatboy]

Issue:
Error message on a blue screen when you transfer data to a USB device in Windows XP.
Resolution:
Error message now placed on gradient green screen when you transfer data to a USB device in Windows XP.

Re:Look closer...

[SoTuA]

Subtle as a kick in the nuts or a bag of bricks to the head.

"Stop error message on a blue screen"

[tod_miller]

Wow! they are half way to eliminating the blue screen, now we get them, but without messages! They were the only chance I had to brush on my hex reading!

How about this bug in the firewall

[mslinux]

MS says it's a feature... I think it's a bug: programmatically disable windows firewall

Re:How about this bug in the firewall

[argent]

This isn't a bug in the firewall.

Local applications running with administrator privilege are inside the security perimeter of the firewall and have the same rights as the firewall management GUI. Microsoft would need to be enforcing mandatory access control to actually prevent third-party applications with appropriate right from managing the firewall, so all they could do would be to leave the management API undocumented and create a false sense of security.

Don't complain, you should be applauding them for avoiding another "security through obscurity" dead-end.

Re:How about this bug in the firewall

[mslinux]

I'm not complaining. The fact of the matter is that 90% of WinXP users run as administrators. By allowing *any* software to tamper with the firewall, MS has made a mistake. All a virus will have to do is trick a user into clicking a link on a web page or something and the fw will go down. This isn't possible with zone alram or sygate firewalls... nor should it be.

Re:How about this bug in the firewall

[maxwell demon]

This is just to avoid antitrust lawsuits. If any competitor claims MS destroys their market by including a firewall in the OS, MS can reply: "Well, you see, our FW isn't really secure, so you still have a market."

Re:How about this bug in the firewall

[argent]

By allowing *any* software to tamper with the firewall, MS has made a mistake.

You're missing the point. It is not possible for Microsoft to do anything else. Their options are to document the API the firewall management control panel or application uses, or to not document it and depend on "security by obscurity".

This isn't possible with zone alram or sygate firewalls

Anyone who tells you that their firewall software can not be disabled by a third party application is lying to you, or confused about the difference between "undocumented" and "secure".

Re:How about this bug in the firewall

[argent]

It's a bit of a design flaw in the Windows security model.

I agree 100%. The Windows security model is broken. As I just commented in another discussion: "I hope Microsoft decides to join the 21st century and changes the default configuration so ordinary users do not run with excessive privileges, and instead requires an explicit action (as in the UNIX 'su' command, or Apple's authentication dialog) to grant installers and configuration tools temporary rights when they need it."

I honestly can not comprehend the selective blindness that Microsoft seems to suffer from when it comes to understanding freshman-level computer security.

However.

Going back to my original point: this is not a security flaw in Windows Firewall, and other firewalls like Zone Alarm are not inherently any safer... they are simply depending on security by obscurity. Unless they lose market share to the point where they don't matter to malware authors there will undoubtedly be software that disables them.

Look at antivirus software. They don't have a "Disable" API, but there are still viruses that disable them... and the code to do it as available to anyone with a copy of the world's premier virus distribution tool (Outlook).

Re:Eh... WTF?

[Junta]

Probably a problem discovered during 2003 testing, that, ultimately, was determined to be in XP. Happens a lot in testing that an incidental find sticks with the original summary even after finding it applies to other things.

My personal favourites -

[JosKarith]

MS03-008: Flaw in Windows Script Engine may allow code to run
So...if it's working fine then no code runs..?

Your access to network resources is slower in Windows XP than in earlier versions of Windows
That's a bug? I thought it was just a symptom of bloat.

The Display Rotates 180 Degrees When You Lower Your Screen Resolution Using the Accessibility Wizard
Now that's just funny. I wanna see it

Re:My personal favourites -

[Anonymous Coward]

The Display Rotates 180 Degrees When You Lower Your Screen Resolution Using the Accessibility Wizard
Now that's just funny. I wanna see it

You can emulate the error by firmly grasping the monitor in your hands, lifting it from your desk, and turning it over.

Re:First Dupe!

[R.Caley]

Ripping the shit out of microsoft for no good reason never, ever happens on this site.

Ripping the shit out of microsoft for no good reason is an impossibility. M$ is such an amazingly efficiant producer of reasons that no one attempting to produce an unjustified attack is likely to succeed in avoiding all of them.

There was a story on slashdot about this already

[Raistlin99]

And you have to be in administrator mode. Oh no, you mean if I log in as administrator the programs can do bad things.

If I logged on to linux as root and ran a program it could cause the same sort of problems

Re:Bugs Not Yet Fixed

[Mant]

Your computer becomes a spam zombie within minutes of being connected to the Internet.

Yep, that's the firewall and security changes. Unless you open infected mail, which is harder but still possible, and always will be, unless you prevent the user from ever running a suspect program even if they choose to.

Outlook Express has no junk mail filtering.

Sadly, no.

Your screen becomes deluged with popup windows with no escape because closing one opens about ten others.

Yes, IE now has a pop-up blocker.

Many of the bugs describe stuff that's just broken full stop and should really have been removed before XP was released, ie: You cannot preview a fax in the Fax Console.. Others sound like simple program logic errors, which shold never have happenned in the first place. I particularly liked: Windows XP stops responding (hangs) when you log off the computer if more than one user is logged on. WTF?

Go read the knowledge base articles. These bugs don't mean these things always happen, only that they happen under certain conditions. Bugs, yes, but harldy "broken full stop".

Let's complain about legit problems with MS, eh?

Re:How many months did it take?

[Zone-MR]

I expected a longer list... waaaaay longer!

Is this the usual anti-MS knee jerk reaction, or could you actually name any bugs in particular which haven't been fixed? I certainly couldn't name more than 20 bugs (I'm talking about bugs in the operating system, not instabilities linked to 3rd party device drivers, etc). The list seems pretty long to me, waaaaay longer than I would have expected.

Re:Jeeze, it's BIG

[svallarian]

not really.

It's 250MB of patches for XP Pro, XP Home, and XP Meida edition. 3 slightly different OS.

Regular for a single one of these would only be around 50-60 meg.

Steven V>

My favorite

[Shakaar]

326863 Operating system throttling does not work

Bugs are Defects

[Maxie Bear]

Calling software defects "bugs" denotes that somehow critters are crawling into code and having their way with the bits. Once upon a time, there were real bugs in computers. They prevented relay contacts from closing. There's no such thing as software "bugs" today, only logic defects.

In reality, defects are created by people with imperfect logic. Calling defects "bugs" is transferring responsibility from the human creator to a mythical insect.

Defective software is a fact of life. Unlike Star Trek Vulcan science officers, humans lack pure logic. Maybe that's the price we're paying for being human.

Until space aliens possessing pure logic visit Earth and mind-meld with humans, we're doomed to imperfect logic. This means microcode cast in silicon, assemblers, compilers, and program generators will continue delivering defective output. To compound the problem, it also means that application solutions humans are abstracting and describing using these tools will continue containing logic defects.

If you think defects are rampant today, you ain't seen nothing yet. The order of complexity of software-based systems is most likely accelerating at a rate faster than Moore's law.

The best we imperfect logic humans can do is learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately, this seems to be rarely practiced. Many realities about the art of software were described by Fredrick Brooks in "The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering." The second edition of the book published 20 years later confirms that the realities of software are as true today as in 1975 when the first edition of the book was published.

A precious few people practicing the art of software are aware of software sins of the past. Most practitioners are blindly recreating them, and are pushing the blame onto the mythical "bug."

Re:Jeeze, it's BIG

[Mant]

I beleive a lot of files have been re-compiled to prevent buffer overflows and take advanateg of the NX flag on processors that support them. Many of these programs don't have a 'bug' as such, but are being made more secure.

It is a bit scary watching the install and seeing all these things being replaced.

Also the ~250MB is the admin version, that has every update. The version for home users will only have the necessary ones they need, and should be quite a bit smaller if the machine is reasonably up to date.

Probably still the biggest SP for windows ever though.

Re:Jeeze, it's BIG

[JBMcB]

I guess XP Media center is quite a bit different, but XP Home is mostly a stripped down XP Pro, with more wizards and different control panels. 2000 Server and 2000 Advanced Server have a bunch of extra server apps, and completely different kernels and base drivers (for SMP and big memory support) when compared to 2000 Pro.

Re:Bugs Not Yet Fixed

[spectecjr]

Outlook Express has no junk mail filtering.

If you recall, it used to have junk mail filtering. Then Blue Mountain Arts sued Microsoft and forced them to take it out - because not only were they not willing to work with MS to ensure that their greetings cards got through, but they were assinine bastards as well.

Wrong time, OS/2 users left know to blame MS

[SmallFurryCreature]

You can only pull this kinda crap (that MS has been proven and even admitted to of having done) when your sure it is the other guy that is blamed. Kinda like when IE fails to load a page it is the websites fault but when Mozilla fails to load a page it is Mozilla's fault.

OS/2 has been killed but it is still being used. Those customers are smart enough to know that any problems are not OS/2 fault but MS. Since MS wants them at one time or another to switch it is probably not to wise to alienate them by showing them how buggy MS software is. Once they switched and are totally locked in THEN you spring the bugs on them. It helps sell the next version. Just explain to me exactly why I should have upgraded from Win95? What exactly has been added that is so helpfull? Stability? Stabilty is a bug, it should have been fixed in a patch.

Read what I wrote...

[rarose]

They *can* hack in an easter egg while *USING SOURCE CODE CONTROL*. And in the management reports it will show up as "fixed a misspelling".

I've done it, I know bunches of other people that have done it, and I've been directed by my manager at one company to do it.

The cutoff date for features is *way* earlier than the cutoff date for defect fixes, and on occasion we'd (i.e. my first level department) discover a feature that we needed to have in the product, but which higher level management would never agree to due to the schedule. Our first line boss would give us the OK to slime it in. It's the old "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission".

Would somebody lose their job? I guess it all depends on whether your first line manager goes to bat for you or not... but that being said I've *never* heard of a programmer losing their job due to slime.

Re:Read what I wrote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you checkin code, it must be code reviewed -- this is manditory. Someone checking in a fix described as "fixed a spelling error", while adding 2000 lines of code, will be told to remove it (or get a bug opened for the new stuff that they added, and deal with it in a different change).

Depending on the group you work in and the phase of the dev cycle you're in, you also have to get triage approval -- this means you have to justify your change to a group of people trying to keep code churn to a minimum.

When code is checked in, the change is mailed to one or more mailing lists. Among the things in the mail are the changelist description and the file in the changelist. Again, red flags will be rased when someone looks at the diff (and believe me, some anal retentive fucker like me will catch it).

If, somehow an employee managed to get through all of those layers and snuck in those 2000 lines of easter egg code under the radar, and the "easter egg" is discovered (and it will be), they lose their job. It's one of the few things you can do at Microsoft which /will/ result in immediate termination.

And people think Linux is HARDER?????

[pandrijeczko]

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Microsoft for releasing software updates but the whole idea of a Service Pack has always struck me as a pretty bad way of doing things.

Why is so unreasonable to expect any user to have a rough idea of what programs they run on their computer so that they just update the bits they need to?

For example, if I run an AMD CPU, why do I need:

810064 - Short Battery Life on Your Pentium III-M Tualatin Processor Computer

I thought Windows Update was supposed to supply you with just the updates you need? Even if it cannot do that level of system checking, what about MS just doing a "portage" or "apt-get" system like in Linux?

MS has a reputation for bloatware and having to download a huge Service Pack where you only need 20-30 of the updates does nothing to quash that reputation.

Not to mention millions of people downloading a 250MB+ Service Pack and wasting bandwidth...

Re:And people think Linux is HARDER?????

[ostiguy]

You download everything, and it installs what it needs.

Would you be happier to have to fix a pc that someone installed XP SP2 - Intel Tualatin edition on instead of AMD Thunderbird edition? Or carry around 12 cds with various permutations of SPs?

ostiguy

Re:And people think Linux is HARDER?????

[pandrijeczko]

I'm not a Windows expert but let's say a Service Pack includes an update to Microsoft's FTP Server service. I install the Service Pack, then I decide to run the FTP Server service for the first time.

Is it already the updated version or do I have to go back and re-apply the Service Pack?

This is just a theoretical question because when I used to work on Windows a lot (during NT4 days), you were advised to re-install the Service Pack after making any major changes to a system.

Just curious.

Service Packs are for another reason.

[Shivetya]

A Service Pack provides an easy mechanism to identify major code refreshes. This way when handed two sets of install disks a person can tell if they have newer version than was originally distributed.

Now for the most part I agree, lots of this should be available for download separately. The update process in windows is tolerable. However there may be enough inter dependancies among these various updates to require them all to be available in one neat package.

I know people who will not use Windows Update but they will apply a service pack.

As for that 250Mb size, I believe that was the special network administrators version that everyone should not have been downloading, let alone the fact that most only got it because it was on P2P network.

This is news?

[isorox]

Why is this news, I thought everyone here used Linux. Or is it just me and you're all laughing behind my back?

Re:This is news?

[Stevyn]

I agree. After I switched to linux I noticed how many people make it seem they're running linux (because of their pro linux comments and being modded up for praising linux), but run windows. Look how many people comment on big microsoft stories. Sometimes it's over a thousand.

I want to see slashdot's webserver statistics showing what people are really running. I wouldn't be surprised if it's only 10-15% of people running linux.

I think in addition to our karma, we should have a linux-o-meter linked to our ID name. That would expose that asshole who shouts out "winblowz," "Micro$oft" and all that other childish crap who's really running windows xp in his mother's basement. There's nothing wrong with people using windows. Hell, I use it at work. It's just when the slashdot "politics" skew the reality of the situation that it starts to get aggrivating.

And by the way, yes I did switch to linux to seem cooler on slashdot because that is all that matters in life.

Here is another list...

[way2slo]

This the list of programs that the built-in firewall will break until you add them to the exception list. Be ready to do the procedure listed in the Knowledge Base article on every machine you apply the service pack to.

I think users want SOME explaination...

[WebCowboy]

...even if they don't really understand it.

I agree that it is hard to explain a buffer overflow to non-technical people, but I've done it before to their satisfaction. A lot of people want to know more about how their computers (and other appliances) work. Furthermore, lack of detail can translate to lack of trust. There has to be a balance between technobabble and plain, simple english.

If all a user wants to know about a bug is something general like you suggest then the list of critical updates in Windows Update or on the SP2 page would look like this:

123456 - A flaw in Internet Explorer may allow an attacker to control your computer
123457 - A flaw in Outlook Express may allow an attacker to control your computer
123458 - A flaw in Windows XP may allow an attacker to control your computer
123459 - A flaw in Internet Explorer may allow an attacker to control your computer
123460 - A flaw in Internet Explorer may allow an attacker to control your computer
123461 - A flaw in Windows XP may allow an attacker to control your computer
123462 - A flaw in Internet Explorer may allow an attacker to control your computer

Honestly, how would this be ANY more useful to a user than something line "A buffer overflow in IE's URI parsing routines could allow an attacker to perform a cross-site scripting attack"? Sure, most users would not know what that means without reading the details, however, I think a lot of users would not be comforted by the above list. Is it the same flaw? How does the flaw manifest itself? Does it apply to my setup?

In fact I think most users would feel a bit insulted by overly vague information on updates--as if MS feels they are not smart enough to handle any sort of detail. "Okay boys and girls, Windows has a booboo. Run this program and it'll but a bandaid on the booboo and everything will be alright again".

I think I'd personally prefer technobabble, at least it sounds more credible (like someone knows something about software).

OT: Favorite bug

[einhverfr]

Ok, this is not XP SP2, but Win2k SP3:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=276304

Imagine getting an error message like:

"Your password must be at least 18770 characters and cannot repeat any of your previous 30689 passwords. Please type a different password. Type a password that meets these requirements in both text boxes."

Dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Windows Update process for installing the service pack does eactly what you describe. It scans the computer for what it needs to DL and it DLs only what the computer nees. It can range from about 70 to 90 meg Not the 250 to 400 meg for the full admin or developer versions.

In the same vein... "I thought that /. users were supposed to be smart enough to figure things out for themselves by reading and experimenting rather than blathering on and on about things that they know nothing about to hords of other people that also know nothing thus starting up a shit storm of FUD like the wold has never seen"

Re:My experience with SP2

[kpogoda]

I installed SP2 and then it made me re-activate both Windows and Office 2003. During the reactivation, my original Product keys were no longer valid. I had to call Micrsoft support, spoke to numerous tech support and activation department employees before they gave me a new product key which could be re-activated. I felt like I was getting interrogated as to why I was re-activating the software even though I had valid and legal copies. The other interesting part, every person I spoke to was from India, the the only person not from India was Canadian. It appears as if Microsoft has almost completely off-shored major portions of their company to India. The way I fixed the computer was to completely reinstall everything on the computer. I have not seen a Micrsoft release that has had more problems and instability than this release of Windows XP and Office 2003.

SlashDot is diving deep into anti-MS propaganda...

[tereshchenko]

Such bug does NOT mean that all writes to USB devices are failing - only on some specific device under special conditions. Usually any functionality in Windows never *completely* broken - unlike Linux where you can get respected distro with non-working DSL support or 50%-failure rate boot loader. As I wrote: SlashDot is deep into blind anti-MS propaganda... shame on you! And what so special about list of bugfixes? Have you seen Debian or Mandrake change logs recently? (and in case of XP SP2 it is list for 2 years! two!)

My personal favorite

[sixpaw]

From Article 815411, Heap Algorithm Update for Atypically Large Heap Requests:

Windows XP SP1 and Windows Server 2003 contain a general purpose, well understood memory / heap algorithm that delivers fast performance for memory requests made from a broad spectrum of Windows programs. The performance of the algorithm in Windows has been evaluated with many industry benchmarks and by careful analysis of typical end-user operations. As with any general purpose algorithm, an atypical sequence of requests can be tailored. In this instance, the algorithm does not perform optimally. However, because such a sequence is not found in typical Windows programs or the system, you do not have to change the heap algorithm. Changing the heap algorithm does not provide for an improvement in system performance for most users and programs.

This hotfix provides a workaround in the heap algorithm to better handle a particular atypical and uncommon sequence of heap requests. The atypical request pattern was found in a custom-built program that does not bear much resemblance to the vast majority of other Windows programs in existence. The scope and the size of this hotfix is narrowly defined for this one particular program and the workaround has no benefit for the majority of programs or overall system performance.

I'd love to see the series of annoyed e-mails between the developer and the QA team that lead to this 'bugfix'...

Re:What's really cool...

[kliment]

what's even cooler is knowing what your name mean... callipygian: having beautiful buttocks

Re:My experience with SP2

[kpogoda]

Yes, I called the US activation number that pops up on the screen. I live in the United States. I only talked to and was transferred to people from India. The same went for support also, but the higher levels of support in India transferred me to someone in Canada after a few people could not help me then transferred me back to India.

I used to have a sig that described it...

[rd_syringe]

...but I took it away because I kept getting marked down for no reason. It read: "Slashdot is the Ain't-It-Cool-News of the tech sector."

Anyone who has been to AICN knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Re:My experience with SP2

[delus10n0]

Sorry, but you're talking out your arse.

I installed SP2 and then it made me re-activate both Windows and Office 2003.

We've deployed it on approximately 100 machines here in the office, and haven't had any activation issues of any kind, with Visual Studio, Office, or Windows XP itself. I also fail to see how a service pack would force a re-activation.

spoke to numerous tech support and activation department employees before they gave me a new product key which could be re-activated. I felt like I was getting interrogated as to why I was re-activating the software

You've apparently never actually had to re-activate windows or office. The very first thing you can do is use the internet to re-activate. 90% of the time this works right off the bat. The second thing you can do is call their 1-800 number, and be connected to an automated phone system. You say/speak the code into your phone, and the system reads back an auth code. Bam, done. If for some reason the phone system cannot understand you, it transfers you to a Real Live Person (tm) who asks for your code, and gives you back an auth code. No interrogation. No questions at all, even.

You're a bit confused.

[Ayanami Rei]

The processor can't detect "empty clock ticks"... there's no such thing.
If the operating system determines that no user threads have anything to do, and the kernel has run out of stuff to do to... so it's just waiting for hardware interrupts (keyboard, mouse, network, video, disk, interval timer), rather than sitting around in a loop it executes the HALT instruction which brings the CPU into a low-power state until an interrupt or trap wakes it up.

Otherwise it would have to spin in a loop for a few milliseconds, and that eats juice it shouldn't otherwise need to.

Intel Speed Step CPUs let the operating system use special MTRRs that allow it to dynamically adjust the clock speed in reaction to an increase or decrease of thumb-twiddling time as well. Because a CPU at 1.2GHz halting 50% is still consuming more power than the same CPU at 800MHz in HALT only 20% of the time.

I believe this is the thing that doesn't work in XP without Service Pack II or hotfixes. I've heard about this gripe before.

It wouldn't be so bad...

[Ayanami Rei]

if there were three changes....

1) That the reg tool existed as early in NT as when the registry was first introduced.

2) That the reg tool would allow you to dump and restore hives and keys to flat/text files

3) That the registry would be broken up into many hives that applications could load and unload dynamically and keep independantly.

In this fashion, for example, all the settings for a particular app for a particular user might end up as %USERDIR%/Application Data/foobar/foobar.dat and would be dynamically added under HKCU or whereever until it the relevant app was closed (and the hive removed).

You could always go back and manually mount that hive and make changes...

In this fashion, complete rebuilds would become unnecessary because you could spread out your critical config, and backup/restore parts independantly, prevent corruption or slow access from large hives, etc.

CrashOnAuditFail is the SHIT.

[Ayanami Rei]

It's actually saved me some trouble. You'll know that your disks are out of free space (thus preventing the audit log from growing) when you see that ol' Blue Screen. A similar machine without the setting would just behave very erratically and just fall all over itself.

It already does

[leonbrooks]

Linux HALTs the CPU when it's not actively doing anything, and has done so for a lot longer than any MS-Windows derivative. I had one guy complain that his dual-boot machine wasn't working in MS-Windows but went fine in Linux (well, hey... but read on), and it turned out to be a failed CPU fan. Linux spent so much time idle (and so HALTed) that the CPU temp was reasonable even without a fan, MS-Windows constantly hammered it so it overheated and went catatonic. And who hasn't woken up at 4AM to hear the MS-Windows Disk Squirrels scampering around on their drive for no reason that you've ever been able to discover?

Win2k and XP do HALT the CPU as well, but by their very nature they don't do it as consistently.

OK, in very small words

[leonbrooks]

Once: Tie a rope between two fixing points. This is like unto your entire hard drive, with many config files interwoven. If a thread frays out of the rope, it doesn't break.

Now tie a thread between two fixing points. This is like unto your registry. If a thread frays out... it's game over.

Again: take a pile of gravel. This is like unto a pile of small files on your hard drive.

Now, carefully stack the individual pieces of gravel one atop another to build a thin, tall pillar. This is like unto your registry on your hard drive.

Take one piece of gravel from each system. Which lasts better?

Discussion: Similar principles apply elsewhere. Microsoft have a tendency to lose the plot when faced with a choice between "robust" and "shiny". They also fall victim to their own propaganda.