Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2003

Posted by michael on from the security-is-priority-one dept.

mithridate writes "Microsoft has posted the Windows 2003 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate. eWeek has a short review of the service pack. My favorite quote from the article is, 'The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.' I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers..."

5 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. SP1 by Ghostgate · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    SP1st post!!

  2. Eweek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    And we should care about what Eweek says because?

  3. damn. by AntiTuX · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    is microsoft just shooting themselves in the foot again? I'm scared shitless of XP SP2, I can't imagine this being much better.

  4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I think what you've touched upon is the greater issue of ignorance vs. objective evaluation. People don't like Microsoft because they let their "bad memories" of Win9x haunt them or because they think that the whole "Microsoft the evil corporation" is still a problem. If most of these people just looked a little harder at Microsoft and their products and their strategy, and worked as hard getting WinXP to be stable as they do setting up their *nix boxes (which includes patching, drivers, etc.), they'll notice a different company with a renewed focus on product quality. Regardless of what they say, Windows, starting with 2000 (which includes XP and 2003, you misquoting dweebs--come to think of it, a lot of anti-MS slashdotters would do well to work for the tabloids), has been a great, stable operating system for many people. Including me.

    Sure, Windows has its security problems, but so does Linux. So if you go that whole "Windows is buggy crap!" route, you fall into the ignorant category. And if I hear another person griping about how MS wants to rule the world...just shut up. Of course Microsoft wants to rule the world and make all the money. What company doesn't? That's called "business."

    So listen closely DeFallus. Put your ear to the wall and you will one day hear the ignorant dorks crying when they finally admit to themselves that they were biased against Microsoft because they're not open-source.

    Microsoft-bashing is childish, ignorant, and most of all stupid, so anyone who applies to that whole movement...consider yourselves "special."

  5. Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation by stry_cat · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    There's this wide belief that Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP because it's more simple... i.e. less background services, less eye candy, runs faster.
    I don't know what planet you're from but it's not the same one I'm on. Everyone I know thinks Win2k was horrible. Of the three places I've worked for in the last 4 years only one liked Win2k enough to try a massive deployment of it (against my recommendation too). Then in 2001 they realized I was right and I had to downgrade the entire company back to Win98. Most of their windows boxen remained there until WinXP, but I did managed to get Linux installed on about 1/4 of them.