Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Bug

Windows XP SP2 Goes Gold 485 485

writertype writes "PC Magazine reports that Microsoft has released Windows XP SP2 to PC OEMs after a two-day delay. A package of stories, complete with an exploration of the new update, is here. The best way for users to get the update, according to Microsoft, is to have Windows Update turned on; a CD version will be made available." Reader Critical_ writes "With all the news of SP2 being delayed, it seems like Microsoft may have pulled a rabbit out of its hat by releasing RTM on its WindowsBeta site. Neowin has a screenshot of the download page and MSFN has the release information. The final build is 2180. For those who can't download it for whatever reason, Microsoft is giving away free CDs here. Happy installing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows XP SP2 Goes Gold

Comments Filter:
  • Holy Crap! (Score:4, Funny)

    by z0ink (572154) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:16PM (#9905093)
    Microsoft (almost) made it close to an original deadline? Whats next ... Linus will turn out to be secretly controlled by evil corporate overlord masters?
    • by Frizzle Fry (149026)
      Soemone mod parent back up. If it saves even one person from the horrific yellow color scheme, it's worth all of wasted time of the people (including me) who already knew how escape.
  • by sparcnut (775902) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:18PM (#9905104)
    Hell reportedly experiencing record low temperatures.
  • So (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:18PM (#9905105)
    does anyone know what incompatibilities it introduces yet?

    I'm a sysadmin mulling over exactly when 'enough people' will have tested it to deploy and roll out myself.

    Jabba the Lawyer

    • Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0racle (667029) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:34PM (#9905228)
      I'm waiting 2 weeks. There should be enough people running many different apps in many different situations that a major problem should have popped up by then, of course they better make it public when(if) they do.
    • Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LurkerXXX (667952) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:45PM (#9905323)
      You are a sysadmin and you don't have any test boxes?
      • Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)

        by hazem (472289) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:56PM (#9905403) Journal
        Yeah, but why rush to wreck them when you can let other people do it! If anything, it's a waste of time to test it when you can wait to find out problems may affect you. Hopefully the rest of your infrastructure is secure enough to weather another 2 weeks without SP2. If not, you have bigger problems!
        • Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LurkerXXX (667952) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:04PM (#9905468)
          Rush to wreck them? That's the whole purpose of the machine, to test if things work you your environments specific conditions or go boom. If it goes boom, you re-ghost it. It doesn't take long at all.
          • Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hazem (472289)
            You have a point, but that still takes time. Unless I had a dire need to get SP2 tested and on my systems, I'd let the dust clear a bit. There will most likely be some problems, and I have other things I can be doing than test it now and then have to test it again later. I suppose that makes me a leech on the work of other harder-working people.
    • by halivar (535827) <bfelger&gmail,com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @11:05PM (#9906226) Homepage
      You'll want to use the --deep option to make sure all your dependencies are in order like so:

      emerge -uDv sys-kernel/windows-xp-sp2

      Oh, wait a sec... I'm not even supposed to be here, am I?
  • So (Score:5, Funny)

    by allio (791515) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:18PM (#9905106)
    Who's going to be the first to test it on a slightly less than legal CD key? :D
    • by RonnyJ (651856)
      Apparently, it will let you install it on an installation using one of the well-known CD-keys. However, I've heard reports that Windows Update will then refuse to let you download further updates.
    • Re:So (Score:5, Informative)

      by wfberg (24378) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:42PM (#9905290)
      According to that msfn.org site, Microsoft has now announced that SP2 will install on all but the PCs that were also blocked from SP1.

      So, if SP1 will install, so will SP2.

      In the interest of preventing other people from getting their computers hacked into to form a botnet and DDOS the planet, check out how to change the CD key [techtarget.com] and a list of CD keys [esmartdesign.com].
    • Re:So (Score:4, Informative)

      by typhoonius (611834) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:08PM (#9905507) Homepage

      I installed the beta of Windows Update v5 on a computer with a warezed copy of Windows XP, and while it installed fine, it wouldn't let me check for updates because it detected the pirate product key.

      Interestingly, I tried to connect just now, and it downloaded the final version of Windows Update v5 and let me download an critical IE security patch. It looks like they've softened their stance again (throughout SP2's long and storied development cycle, they've been back and forth over whether they'd allow pirated copies to grab the update).

  • So who pays, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoraLives (622001) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:19PM (#9905112)
    if this dog eats your homework?
  • by rpbailey1642 (766298) <robert.b.prattNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:19PM (#9905119)
    Just because MS makes it available doesn't mean they've worked out all the bugs. They may have taken care of a number, only 1/5 or 1/20 or even 1/100 have problems, but that is still a huge number. I know I'm not deploying the patch at my site for at least a couple of weeks, until I see the articles of the after-effects.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:20PM (#9905121)
    I-think-I'll-let-you-install-it-first dept.

    Hmm...Does this mean Michael, Microsoft hater extraordinaire runs Windows in his spare time?

    Why would he let me install it first unless he has windows himself to install SP2 later?

    I think I've just exposed Michael has a hypocrite and windows user.

    • by ejaw5 (570071) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:30PM (#9905668)
      A group of sysadmins gather in conference to debate who to deploy SP2 first. After hours of deadlock, a solution was devised:

      The sysadmins arranged their seats in an inward facing circle. A secretary is called in to randomly play, pause, and resume a Windows Media Audio file on WMP9. The sysadmins randomly throw to each other the 1 SP2 cd burned last night, exclaiming "SP2! SP2" as the disc is hurled to the next holder. Each time the music stops, whoever holds the cd is eliminated from the circle and the game continues. The last person holding the SP2 update CD is the victim^H^H^H^H^H^H first admin to deploy XP SP2 in his/her department.
  • by VidEdit (703021) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:20PM (#9905125)
    Now that the latest major release for XP is out, it is time to do away with this "Service Pack" nonsense. This versioning is confusing to end users and has always seemed like an attempt by Microsoft to pretend that their software wasn't bug ridden, it just requires regular maintenance the way a car needs an oil change. Hogwash.
  • by Zerbey (15536) * on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:23PM (#9905143) Homepage Journal
    The Windows Beta site is really getting hammered right now and giving 500 errors so don't be surprised if you can't get in. I managed to download it from eMule and I'm sure torrents will appear soon. The filename is called:

    WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe

  • by Anonymous Coward
    There are still enough of us who prefer Win2K to XP. There have been multiple remote vulnerabilities exposed since SP4. So how about rolling up the latest hotfixes and giving us SP5?
  • Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lisandro (799651)
    Wasn't this the patch "delayed" because it crashed 3 out 5 XP machines?

    Guess i can wait a while to install it at work...
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:28PM (#9905170) Homepage
      ..then make sure you don't have 'automatic updates' on otherwise all hell will break lose.

      We got wind of the decision to push it out via that channel just in time to switch windows update off via a group policy. Which is lucky otherwise we'd be looking at a lot of dead machines on monday morning (putting up a eula is *not* going to stop users installing it... most of them click blindly on anythign they're asked).
      • Why are you giving users administrative access over their PCs? There is NO valid reason for it (and if you think there is, you need to do some research). It sounds like someone at your company isn't doing their job.
        • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          There is every valid reason for it.

          For a start, they're testers and our software won't even begin to install for a non-administrator.

          btw. you need to realize how automatic updates work - you do *not* need to be an administrator to use it. They download in the background and and are made 'live' by a scheduled reboot overnight. You could have all your users as 'guest' and you'd still be hosed.

          If it didn't work like that it'd be pretty damned useless... you'd have to pay someone to manually log in as an ad
        • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bob65 (590395)
          Why are you giving users administrative access over their PCs? There is NO valid reason for it (and if you think there is, you need to do some research)

          Um, how about convenience? Do you REALLY think it is wise to have to have an administrator come by (or access the pc remotely) everytime a user (such as a software developer, QA engineer, etc) needs to install software or change system settings (different software that installs in different places, different settings...), or add/delete user accounts or s

          • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bitty (91794)
            Please give me a reason why this is NOT valid reason. I personally hate sys admins who like to abuse power and make other people's jobs harder. In fact, everyone should have local administrative access - there is no reason for them not to. Just give it with the caveat that if they muck up, they're on their own.

            Try telling that to the company president after they've installed enough spyware/adware to effectively cripple their machines. Any admin worth their pay is going to have automated tools to take car
      • "We got wind of the decision to push it out via that channel just in time to switch windows update off via a group policy."

        Wow... a company that doesn't use SUS to control patches. Didn't think you guys existed. You let your users install their own patches up until now?
        • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          No, we let automatic update do it. That's what it's for.

          Our MCSE refuses to touch SUS with a bargepole. there are some valid reasons (it requires a dedicated server and large hard disk, and we can't spare the hardware) and some just because he hates it it didn't work when we trialled it.

          It's pretty pointless anyway as the company is on a fast leased line so a proxy like SUS is just sucking up administration time.
          • You're seriously misguided in the requirements. Any recent desktop machine will do. If you have a lot of load and you can't stomach buying a decent server ($4k should be way more than adequate) maybe you should reconsider how serious your operation is.
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by YU Nicks NE Way (129084) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:38PM (#9905255)
      No.

      As to the famous "3 out of 5" comment, this [slashdot.org] post explains that problem better than I can. Basically, the guy who published the original article appears to have installed spyware on his system, and then he's blaming MS because his spyware doesn't work.
      • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tony Hoyle (11698)
        So?

        I bet a lot more than 3 out of 5 home users machines are full of spyware too. ..and they're just about to get a visit from 'Mister Servicepack'.

        Oh dear....
  • by mind21_98 (18647) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:32PM (#9905208) Homepage Journal
    Hmm, if it really does fix the majority of the security problems in Windows, will this remove most of the motivation towards installing Linux or another OS? This seems like a possiblity.
  • Erm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sinner0423 (687266) <sinner0423@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:33PM (#9905219)
    A friend of a friend would like to know..

    Since version 5 of windows update refuses to let anyone with a corporate key download this, does anybody have any legitimate mirrors for SP2?

    Also, apparently, neowin reports [neowin.net] SP2 accepts those evil keys [microsoft.com].

    It makes one wonder.. why allow SP2 to install on pirated copies, but refuse to let people update via the windows update site?
    • It's a bait and switch. They go "Here, have some nice tasty service pack 2" but don't put a warning lable on it saying "Side effects may include crashes, lockups, itchy nose, fever, loss of updates..."

      And really, SP2 Corp keygens were out on the P2P networks a few weeks back. Just keep changing it until the product ID starts XXXXX-640- and doesn't match one of the ones listed on your "Evil Keys" link, and you should be good to go on windows update v5.

  • Torrent Links (Score:5, Informative)

    by calebb (685461) * <slashdot @ b e nefiel.net> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:34PM (#9905229) Homepage Journal


    276 Seeders, 1300 downloaders [66.90.75.92]

    60 seeders, 300 downloaders [66.90.75.92] (Requires fileshack.org account)

    6 seeders, 60 downloaders [66.90.75.92]

    1 seeder, 10 downloaders [66.90.75.92]

    p.s., I still hate the color scheme on it.slashdot.org
  • And MD5 sum would be nice, too. Post it here.
  • by NeoSkandranon (515696) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:37PM (#9905252)
    I'm seeing torrents for several diff file sizes (266 and 271mb) ....whats the difference?
  • to see what grade of 'gold' this is...
  • Oh sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geek (5680) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:42PM (#9905291) Homepage
    Release it on Friday night after all the tech support people have gone home. Nice one MS, bloody classic.
    • Re:Oh sure (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SilentChris (452960)
      RTFA. They released to manufacturing. You know, OEMs. It's not available for regular folks unless you're part of their beta site.

      Besides, most tech support people *I* know won't be rushing to install this on company computers (although I might jump in head-first for a home machine).
      • by geek (5680)
        It's called sarcasm, get a grip on yourself junior.
      • MS have convermed they're going RTW (release to web) on Monday.

        Ya' know, just before all the support staff get into work...

        I don't admin any more as our MCSE won't let me do it (the same one that insists that he keeps a copy of all the passwords on a printout on his desk and gets shirty when I refuse to tell him it... pity they don't teach squat about security at MCSE school).
  • MD5 checksum for SP2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by thalakan (14668) <jspence@light[ ] ... m ['con' in gap]> on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:46PM (#9905331) Homepage
    According to a post on neowin:

    Filename: WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe
    MD5: 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7

    The one I'm getting on a torrent has a SHA1 hash of:

    GOUP55QNJCXB6LCP52RHCENPLTWKHRHW
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I've been waiting, like, forever for that one.

    WTF? I gotta buy something again just to get it to work right?
  • RC2 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dfj225 (587560) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:47PM (#9905337) Homepage Journal
    I've had the SP2 RC2 on my box for some time now. I'm actually surprised by how stable it has been. I've even been able to play Doom 3 with no crashes. I can't really say how the security improvements are, but the one thing that I have noticed is that wireless networking seems to have improved much. Also, it doesn't seem like the firewall was working too well (at least for outbound traffic).
  • by zulux (112259) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:49PM (#9905351) Homepage Journal


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

    (kidding)
  • Windowsbeta.microsoft.com appears to be slashdotted...anywhere else this is mirrored? I'd prefer no torrent (even though a previous post of mine indicates im looking at them) because of connection issues (I get pathetic upstream, which makes getting good torrent rates difficult)
  • Meh... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hosehead17 (466213)
    We actually got an e-mail alert today from the company that makes our phone system server and client software that said if we installed XP SP2 it would break their software. Oh, and they have a patch forthcoming for the latest version, which we've had issues upgrading too. I don't know if this is Microsoft's fault or the company that wrote the software, most likely a little of both, but we won't be deploying for a while. The patch for our version isn't going to be release immediately. How many others ar
  • by SilentChris (452960) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:52PM (#9905379) Homepage
    I found this line interesting:

    "Microsoft will use metered downloads to update users steadily without bogging down the entire Internet."

    *Strokes chin* How do they do this, exactly? By IP? By Product Key? What determines when someone will get it?

    Hopefully we'll see SP2 on Torrents soon.
    • by WhoDaresWins (601501) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:21PM (#9905621)
      As per the Windows XP SP2 RTM press release [msn.com] this is how they are going to do it -

      The timing for customers to receive the Service Pack 2 download through Automatic Updates depends on a number of factors, including the customer's Internet usage, location, language and the level of Internet demand for Service Pack 2. Automatic Updates uses spare Internet capacity to progressively download updates without interfering with daily PC use. Microsoft expects to distribute Service Pack 2 to approximately 100 million PCs through Automatic Updates over the next two months.

      The progresive download feature being talked about refers to the "Background Intelligent Transfer Service" BITS [microsoft.com]. BITS transfers files using leftover bandwidth. For example, if you are currently using 60 percent of your bandwidth, BITS will only use the remaining 40 percent. BITS also maintains file transfers when a network disconnection occurs, or a computer needs to be restarted: When the network connection is re-established, BITS will continue where it left off.
  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rtilghman (736281) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:02PM (#9905450)

    Price for a laptop? $1500.00
    Price for Win XP Pro? $299.99
    Price for SP2? Free

    Resinstalling Windows XP, all your programs, and all your data after SP2 renders the computer unusable? Priceless

    -rt
    • Some of us are waiting for the fixes to the service pack before we consider installing it. M$ has never gotten anything right before the third try anyway.
  • MD5 Sum from WinBeta (Score:4, Informative)

    by Airw0lf (795770) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:16PM (#9905577)
    This is the MD5 sum from WinBeta. (Found at neowin.net)

    WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe 59A98F181FE383907E520A391D75B5A7
  • The Firewall (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hawaiian717 (559933) on Friday August 06, 2004 @09:57PM (#9905834) Homepage
    From one of the PCMag articles:
    Microsoft has included a programmatic interface for Windows Firewall that allows an application to do things like set FirewallEnabled to FALSE, add itself to the list of AuthorizedApplications, or change the configuration of GloballyOpenPorts. Our concern here is that a malicious application could turn off Windows Firewall or, more likely, mark itself as an authorized application. Corporate administrators can disable some or all local configurations, which will prevent programs from making changes; but ultimately, Microsoft maintains, individuals still have to be smart about what apps they run. Even the best deadbolt won't protect your house once you've let the bad guys in.

    I agree with PCMag on this. Microsoft still doesn't get it. To continue the Microsoft analogy, they gave the bad guys a key to the deadbolt.

    Looks like I'll be continuing to ignore the built in firewall in favor of a real one.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1631256,00.as p [pcmag.com]

  • by scruffy (29773) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @12:39AM (#9906743)
    If Microsoft can release this service pack, then surely there is hope that /. can change this horrid color scheme.
  • Hmph (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bmetz (523) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @11:21AM (#9908536) Homepage
    Put SP2 on two machines
    on one of my laptops, it worked fine. Done.

    On my desktop, I can no longer see the contents of my second NTFS drive. Uninstalling SP2 leaves me still unable to see it.

    Ugh, and it seemed like a decent upgrade besides that.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...