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..."

7 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Looks like they are starting to understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Security. Oh god, that -1 for me!

  2. Re:Service Pack vs Version by mottie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft already does this, they just mask it from the stupid "end user"

    Winver will show you exactly what version you are running, and what the build number is.

    Let me get this straight.. you're pissed off because they threw "extra" into the service pack instead of releasing a new version and charging you for it? I think your wallet is too fat, and is affecting the bloodflow to your brain..

  3. Time travel corrupts builds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server

    Well duh, the code got corrupted in the time machine you used to get the Windows Server 2003 SP2.

  4. Re:Microsoft Pre-judged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stupid Fanbois. Linux is teh bomb.

  5. MS breaks applications after only a year or so? by Mainframes+ROCK! · · Score: 2, Funny

    Last year I loaded a 1976 version of the PL/C (Programming Language / Cornell) compiler onto a modern IBM System 390 running zVM. And it worked, perfectly, the first time. After 27 years. Take that Microsoft ;-)

  6. Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 by freakmn · · Score: 3, Funny

    I haven't seen actual statistics on XP, but I'd say it's at least as stable as W2k with SP6.


    Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Windows 2000 only has service pack 4. This "Service Pack 6" may be some ill-meaning program, sounding like it is helpful, like an internet speeder or something.

    I know you just mistyped, and I'm being a real jerk. I understand why that mistake may be made. First, NT, which 2000 is upgraded from, is on version 6a. Internet Explorer, the default browser on 2000, is also at version 6 something. Same with outlook express, default mail application. WAIT! 3 programs all at version 6? That's 666. MICROSOFT IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

    CARRIER LOST
    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  7. Re:Don't know about your guys but.. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come back and speak to us again in another 1000 days or so - by that time you'll probably come close to the record of uninterrupted service for an average UNIX server...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.