Windows XP SP2 Goes Gold 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."
Is it really golden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to do away with this Service Pack (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows Beta site getting hammered (Score:5, Insightful)
WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess i can wait a while to install it at work...
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to do away with this Service Pack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go back to green (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh sure (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
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 set up their own local firewalls/networks? 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.
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Install Server 2003. (Score:3, Insightful)
And no service packs! Because they left out all the shitty stuff.
Re:Go back to green (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, do we really need an IT section? It is what it is? Can we go back to the real slashdot PLEASE?
If MS can, so can Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
If RTW is Monday, why is this such a huge deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not intentionally being flamebait, but can't it wait till Monday so that you're for sure your downloading the right thing and not some ankle bitter's bot script that's embedded in their copy of SP2?
--pete
Re:The Firewall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a common misconception. The sysadmin's job is not to provide service to the user, it is to maximize the availibility of his employer's resources. The sysadmin's scope is much larger than a single user, and involves protecting all of the systems under his control from any single user. If a machine is down because the "clever" user toasted it and can't put it back together, that is a failing of the sysadmin. If the user is wasting his time installing software rather than doing whatever it is he is paid to do, that is a failing of the sysadmin. If the user really needs to do that sort of thing, he should be the sysadmin--with all that entails, and with full responsibility for exposing his employer to additional risks (e.g., unpatched internet host) if he doesn't know what he is doing.