Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows

Microsoft Delays Windows XP Service Pack 2 399

Posted by simoniker from the gone-til-august dept.
Rinisari writes "DesignTechnica, among some others , explains that Microsoft has once again delayed its release of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, though only until August. Microsoft has declined to comment on the reason for the delay. Windows Update v5, however, is online and operational (and works with Service Pack 1!), although not officially so. I know many smaller education institutions are chomping at the bit with the looming release, as they are worried about compatibility with some of the new features in Service Pack 2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Delays Windows XP Service Pack 2 More

Microsoft Delays Windows XP Service Pack 2

Comments Filter:

  • invalid product keys... (Score:5, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:02PM (#9679469)
    Speculation that warez'd copies would still be allowed to update via Windows update were at least partly wrong. You may still be able to manually update Windows with an "invalid" product key but you cannot do it via the v5 Windows Update interface.

    [Error number: 0x80244028]
    Cannot validate the product key
    The product key used to install Microsoft Windows may not be valid. For more information about why you have received this error message, and steps you can take to resolve this issue, please visit How to Tell.

    • Re:invalid product keys... (Score:5, Informative)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:12PM (#9679613) Journal
      There's a bit more info with the first few links [google.com]. Some speculation is that they're blacklisting all non-registered Corp keys, which is pretty much what all warez copies are of.
      • In 2002 - product activation was the biggest punishment I have ever seen for a paid customer

        In 2003 - security and hotfix galore

        In 2004 - SP2 compatibility problems and more browser disaster.

        In 2005 - ???

        • Re:invalid product keys... (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In 2006 - Profit !!!

        • Re:invalid product keys... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Nugget ( 7382 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @05:33PM (#9680641) Homepage
          In 2002 - product activation was the biggest punishment I have ever seen for a paid customer

          I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Product Activation is a total non-event for the vast majority of customers. It's way less invasive than some of the other copy protection schemes the industry has seen over the years.

          I sure prefer it to the fragile, tenuous daisy chain of serial port dongles I had in the 80s and it's way better than copy-protected media that was impossible to back up.

          In the years I've been running XP, the product activation has caused me _zero_ difficulty, and that's on home-built hardware that's been upgraded and changed quite a bit over the years.

          • Yeah, i have not had any trouble with it at home or work.

            home: xp pro license obtained thru a ms marketing package that cost my 39.99. i had it installed on a via based athlon mobo, i just having decommissioned that box, installed it on a sis based p4 mobo. activated cleanly.

            work: no issues with machines that have been reimaged. we run the oem xp pro license, cuz software assurance for the client pcs was going to kick our brains in.

            all in all, it is not as bad as i had feared.

            ostiguy

    • Re:invalid product keys... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't you mean:

      [Error number: 0xdeadbeef]
      Cannot validate the product key
      The product key used to install Microsoft Windows may not be valid. For more information about why you have received this error message, and steps you can take to resolve this issue, please visit Go To Hell       .
      Bill

    • Re:invalid product keys... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:21PM (#9679744)
      Actually, as of the latest SP2 build, all you need is a corporate key with a PID of 640. New key generators can give you perfect PID 640 keys instantly and several people now have SP2 running, including WindowsUpdate v5, on "warezed" copies of XP using these keys.

      Though it should be simple enough for Microsoft to implement a blacklist of non-sold keys, all that would effect is WindowsUpdate. There are ways to disable product activation / authentication on the client side without ever touching a network connection.

      What to do without WindowsUpdate? Why AutoPatcher [autopatcher.com] of course.

  • Windows Update v5? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dejamatt ( 704418 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:04PM (#9679491)
    Doesn't seem to work too well with Firefox, but I could just be an idiot. Can anyone cornfirm that it's still IE-Only?

    • Re:Windows Update v5? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bamf ( 212 )
      It's always been IE only.

    • Windows Update uses ActiveX (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ActiveX is only supported by Microsoft Internet Explorer.

      Hope this helps.

    • Re:Windows Update v5? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:07PM (#9679547)
      It won't work at all with anything other than IE, since it uses ActiveX apps to do all the checking of your machine.
      It's the only thing I now need IE for.
      • There is a project to add ActiveX support to Firefox. Trouble is, ActiveX is the main reason for IE's security holes. (There are other reasons, like general MS sloppiness and the large installed base, but A-X is the really big one.)

        I've been using RC2 for a few weeks on two separate PCs with no problems except a slightly longer boot time. (Well, fewer than with SP1.) The biggest improvement is the firewall.

    • Re:Windows Update v5? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ankle ( 633399 )
      Does it work with the activex plugin for mozilla?
      http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm [www.iol.ie]

      I'm curious but not enough so to put a hole like activex in firefox.

    • Re:Windows Update v5? (Score:5, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:32PM (#9679881) Homepage Journal
      "Doesn't seem to work too well with Firefox, but I could just be an idiot."

      Somehow I doubt CowboyNeal would be a popular option in this poll.
    • This really isn't a troll/funny question, IMO, as I briefly wondered this myself. Version 4 of Windows Update explicitly locks out non-IE browsers with a message stating that IE is requried. Version 5, however, seems to load fine (albeit ugly), except for the fact it just displays a "Checking for the latest version of the Windows Update Software..." message and nothing else. It does not seem to actually say that ActiveX or IE is required. That being said, the answer is yes, it is still IE-only, since the

  • Good on them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:04PM (#9679495)
    I, at least, say good on them for delaying the release if it means they can better deliver on some of the promises which they've made about this pack.

    If nothing else, at least Microsoft is trying much, much harder at security nowadays.

    • Re:Good on them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:21PM (#9679749) Homepage
      To paraphrase Lewis Black (referring to airport security) -- slower doesn't necessarily mean safer. Promises that don't get delivered don't mean much. Maybe they're perfecting it, or maybe they're sneaking features in...we don't really know.

      How hard Microsoft is trying when it comes to security is strictly implied. Unfortunately, most should have EXPECTED it of them to begin with. "Trustworthy Computing" is primarily a marketing response...with technical consequences.

  • Cannot validate the product key (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:04PM (#9679496) Journal
    Hmmm, I guess MS has decided to take a little (read: tiny) more aggressive stance towards piracy, no more automagic updates for you. Although we do have an Action Pack subscription (XP Pro), so we do have more then enough licenses, we use XP Corp CD/Keys to ignore that stupid activation, but it looks like it came back to bite us in the ass.
    • Somebody will no doubt eventually come up with another technique to thwart Microsoft's plans of content control that will work for you, given the widespread distribution of pirated Corp. XP. But maybe this is a good opportunity for your organization to get legal anyway?

      I thought I heard of a way (during the similar problem created by the SP1 release) to force a new CD key into your installation -- is this possible to do with your Action Pack keys, or is the CD-key algorithm different in the Corp? It'd b

    • i also do the same thing, just because it makes management easier. Why should the big boys get all the breaks only because they have more $$?

      If it gets to the point where this sort of thing is impossible, ill just be forced to move my clients to other less restrictive systems.. and have a bit more ammunition to back it up. " see, your support costs are increasing" ...

      • Re:Corp Keys (Score:5, Interesting)

        by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:28PM (#9679823) Journal
        In my eyes, IANAL, it's perfectly legal, we paid for the (insert num of licenses here, 5-10 iirc), so we should be able to install XP Pro that many times. To me we pay for a license to use XP, not for a specific CD Key, so to me, it shouldn't matter that we're using the Corp version of XP Pro, it's still XP Pro just w/o the pointless activation. Again, IANAL.
    • By the way, Action Packs' licenses are only good for a year from the point of subscription. You need to renew after it expires.

    • Hmmm, I guess MS has decided to take a little (read: tiny) more aggressive stance towards piracy, no more automagic updates for you.

      When you think about it though, what good does it do MS? These days malware doesn't format your drive and pop up a box saying, "Ha ha. Yer a victem of DorkLord Seth." It uses the box to attack other Windows boxes (and generally cause grief for the rest of the computing world).

      If they think denying patches to pirates is anything except self-defeating, they are mistaken. W

  • In all fairness.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SecretSauce ( 247950 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:05PM (#9679512) Homepage Journal
    It's probably better that they delay it, rather than come out with something that's not 100%. We are talking Microsoft though...by the time they got it to 100% we'd all be playing duke nukem forever =)
  • Just an opinion on the V5 Windows Update. Yes it does detect invalid products (my friends = owned). Does this mean Microsoft are getting more serious since they haven't done this before? I mean, if they could of stopped more users from using a product illegally, why not do it before cause from what I heard, rumors say crackers found a way to bypass this.

    they cannot be stopped.

  • Bug time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Metteyya ( 790458 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:07PM (#9679544)
    As I understood, it means that a bulk of IE users (the ones that don't download small "security updates", but only full SPs) will be vulnerable to well-known bug till (hopefully) August?

    Well, now that just shouldn't even be compared to Mozilla's bugfixes.
    (because who would be able to compare 24 hours with 24 days and not laugh to death?)

    • Re:Bug time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Loligo ( 12021 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:14PM (#9679645) Homepage
      >a bulk of IE users (the ones that don't download
      >small "security updates", but only full SPs) ...

      >... that just shouldn't even be compared to
      >Mozilla's bugfixes. (because who would be able to
      >compare 24 hours with 24 days and not laugh to
      >death?)

      Lemme make sure I got this right. A "bulk of IE users" don't download small security updates, but you think they'd get small security updates for Mozilla?

      24 hour bugfixes are irrelevant to "a bulk of users" if they can't be bothered to download and install them, as you claim.

      -l

    • Re:Bug time (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tesmako ( 602075 )
      I don't quite follow you at all, you first claim that people don't bother to download the fixes, then you appear to make fun of Microsoft for getting the fixes out later than Mozilla. Would seem that it does not matter one bit how fast you are fixing things if no one downloads the fixes anyway.
    • If people want to, they can download and install sp2 today. I'm running it, and have been happy with it. Every recent exploit that has been announced was blocked on it.

  • What about Windows 2000 (Service pack 5?) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:09PM (#9679575)
    Does anybody know whether these new changes/features (in IE and elsewhere) will ever make it into Windows 2000 (which at the moment seems to be the most preferred Windows at least in corporate environments). Win2k SP4 pretty much covered everything in XP SP1, but not much has been mentioned since then.

    • Re:What about Windows 2000 (Service pack 5?) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hughk ( 248126 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:20PM (#9679727) Journal
      A lot of corporate types got a little allergic to XP, even if the license came with the hardware and they still run 2K. Microsoft would love to get the desktops onto XP but many don't find the extra features of XP so interesting. It is always embarrassing when you have to compete against your own products.

      Microsoft are sort-of obliged to keep rolling out security fixes for 2K, but is a popup blocker a fix or a feature? They surely would love to have a lever to get us all moved onto XP.

      • Re:What about Windows 2000 (Service pack 5?) (Score:4, Insightful)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @06:13PM (#9681014)
        It is always embarrassing when you have to compete against your own products.

        Microsoft are sort-of obliged to keep rolling out security fixes for 2K, but is a popup blocker a fix or a feature? They surely would love to have a lever to get us all moved onto XP.
        Here we see one of the major disadvantages of monopolies, when your biggest competition is from your previous released it becomes very tempting to hold back on things like popup blocking and all these fixes for IE from current releases to save them for a future release. If it wasn't for mozilla suddenly becoming a threat I'm sure we wouldn't of seen these fixes to IE until Longhorn, no matter how bad it got, in fact the worse it got the better because that's simply a motivation to buy the new product. Now they have to try it earlier than they want and put it in XP because of competition from Mozilla but I'm sure we're not going to see these fixes backported to previous versions of windows, it would take away to incentive to upgrade.
    • SP5 would be worth it simply for rolling up all the critical updates and Sp4 into a single executable. This would allow machines to be setup and patched offline and not worry about as many network-level vulnerabilities, as well as taking a lot of the patching burden off of needing a relatively high speed internet connection.

      I've always wondered why MS didn't produce minor-version service packs (eg, 4.24) that included the last major service pack plus critical updates released since then as a single EXE.

  • Maybe a Sensible Move... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SadPenguin ( 776485 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:10PM (#9679581) Homepage
    It's fairly ridiculous that this SP is delayed.. again... however, IMHO its a good move on their part, because (hopefully) it means that they are including more useful security fixes etc. in it. And its silly that those even need to be release this much after the fact, but they might as well get them all (well, most of them) in there now, so there's not SP2a, SP2b, SP2security patch 229q etc.

    I recall an operating system that was fairly rushed to get out, called Windows 95, that really sucked. Hopefully, though this is only an SP, the delay will prevent rush-to-get-it-out-crappiness.

    sigSEGV - doy!

    • Re:Maybe a Sensible Move... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:32PM (#9679879) Homepage
      There is also the possibility that microsoft is having a hard time dealing with fixing all the vulnerabilities.

      I wonder to what extent they find that fixing one vulnerability just break, and I mean mangles horribly, some functionality in Excel or Word that everybody has to have (like VBA or sum'thin).

      It's like the domines are falling at microsoft, and that they are starting to realize that a rewrite from the ground up does not look to bad (at least you can start with a sound concept).

      Of course, I doubt they could pull that off, so the next couple years are going to be really interesting.
    • They probably didn't feel comfortable with their level of testing thus far and wanted to do more. I imagine they're jumping through hoops to support to the more popular apps. But really, software makers should just get with it. I'm not gonna run anything that won't run with SP2.

    • Re:Maybe a Sensible Move... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybadNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday July 12, 2004 @07:27PM (#9681587)

      It's a fairly well-known strategy to hype a product well before it's introduction in order to prevent a competitor from gaining ground. I don't think SP2 has been delayed at all, Microsoft's project planners would have to be completely incompetant to have delayed the patch for so long without a good reason. No, they want to string people along with the promise of a miracle cure-all for as long as possible.

      Having trouble with popups? SP2 is coming soon! Need more security? SP2!! Want your computer to wash the dishes and feed the dog too? Good news, SP2!!

  • Delays (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:10PM (#9679593) Homepage Journal
    Hey, this means that Longhorn would likely get pushed back as well (if it ships at all). This gives us an extra month to make Linux a mainstream desktop OS before the NGSCB DRM (the RIAA's wet dream) ensures Microsoft forevermore. Hurry people!!

  • Last minute changes... (Score:5, Funny)

    by inkdesign ( 7389 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:11PM (#9679601)
    to BobXP forced the delay...

  • Comping at the bit about the wrong thing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ProppaT ( 557551 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:11PM (#9679607) Homepage
    "chomping at the bit with the looming release, as they are worried about compatibility with some of the new features in Service Pack 2."

    I'm sure they're all worried about compatibility issues. Everyone is. But with school starting in August...and the release date in August...there's going to be zero time to work out the kinks before students start hitting the labs full force.

  • Umm Duyoyoyoy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 )
    "I'm afraid now, I have somehow missed this message," says a Windows developer who asked not to be named. "Was it buried in too many marketing messages? Was it dependent on me searching it out?"

    Was it SO OBVIOUS that you even had to be specifically told to test your apps on a new version of their target platform?

    No news here. Next hot tip, some stuff may not work with the latest kernel image from linus and the gang.

  • New Windows Update: Way different (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:16PM (#9679675)
    Heads up to you admins out there, the update to WindowsUpdate is more than trivial. Ability to (more easily) view patch install history, Admin options for downloading patches for multiple OS's, not-so-obvious new method of showing you exactly what you're installing...If you've taught techs/users to do this, they're going to have to be re-taught when it goes live.
    • Will SP2 be installed if the user has his or her PC set to automatically update?

      Should I assume that friends and family will all call me on the same day asking "what the hell is this firewall thing asking me all these questions?"

  • NT4 Service Packs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:16PM (#9679679) Homepage
    Personally, since Microsoft doesn't seem to be releasing any more updates for NT4, I'd sure like to see them put out a Service Pack 7 so I don't have to go thru the steps SP6a - Post 6a SRP - Windows Updates every time I have to install a new component on an old NT4 system.

  • Means a delay on VPC7 too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goMac2500 ( 741295 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:18PM (#9679707)
    Virutal PC 7 is not coming until SP2 is out according to Microsoft so us Mac users can be assured the latest in security.

    Or Microsoft is stalling because they're not finished with VPC7. One of the two.

  • Why not release July Security Service Pack? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:20PM (#9679722)

    Why don't they just release an XP interim security service pack? Surely they have enough already working in SP2 that they can get at least SOME of the fixes out the door sooner?

    Cripes, even something that just defaults a user's firewall to "on" and obscure ports to "off" would be a head start.

    Normally I'd say fine, the longer the better - lets me get Firefox into wider distribution ;-) but the more insecure winboxen there are out there, the worse things get for the rest of us. A 60% solution now while waiting for the other 40% of SP2 would seem like a benefit to the end-user.

  • [ot] windows update, without IE? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:21PM (#9679743)
    Alright, a few weeks ago i walked my parents through setting up firefox over the phone. I don't want them touching IE with a 10 foot pole. I have heard there is an app from MS for running Windows Update without a web browser. anyone have any more details? any experience using it?

    hfc.
    • Actually, there is a small tray icon that can be used to automatically download updates without using Internet Explorer, at least in XP. Go to Control Panel: System, and open the Automatic Updates tab. Then set the schedule to your own convenience.

    • Re:[ot] windows update, without IE? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thng ( 457255 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:49PM (#9680072)
      You may be thinking of the Microsoft baseline security analyzer [microsoft.com]. FWICT, it finds most (if not more) of the security updates on windows update (based on v4) and I added the "more" because it also scans other products, like MSSQL (v5 of windowsupdate seems to have some of this ability)

      It is not quite like windows update, in that they will still need to download them, and would probably just confuse them.

      If they're running windows 2k sp3(?) or higher, or Windows XP, just turn on [microsoft.com] Automatic updating, and choose either install updates automatically, or download updates automatically and prompt to install.

      Hope this helps

  • Delayed for a reason (Score:5, Funny)

    by howman ( 170527 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:27PM (#9679811)
    Microsoft has found out that SP2 contains a huge security hole which may allow your OS to run completely trouble free and secure. They are working hard to patch this bug, which has been termed GOOB.ASAP (Going out of business), with faulty code as to require monthly updates, service contracts, partnerships with virus software detection companies and eventual update of hardware.
    SP2 will also include a new feature which will bring back an old friend of ours. Ever since the demise of the blue screen of death, customer calls and upgrades have been down. They are working around the clock on a newly branded moire of death which they feel will be just as impactful as the origional blue screen but with a friendlier look and feel.
    They are appologising for the delay in delaying your delayed computer experience.

  • If you want to check out XP SP2 RC2... (Score:5, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:29PM (#9679837) Homepage Journal
    Then, go to http://v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] (not v4). Just remember to make backup before you upgrade in case anything goes wrong!

  • blah...who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aslan72 ( 647654 ) <psjuvin.ilstu@edu> on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:37PM (#9679932)
    There are a couple of pieces that I'd like (e.g. the pop-up blocker), but for the most part, I really don't care and it's a problem that's best suited till later. I don't feel like piecing my way through the gpo that you'll need to setup to configure the "firewall" the right way.
    I'm much more looking forward to Mcafee's next release which will include a buffer overrun protector and its own spyware killer(which I bet will work a bit better).
    --pete

  • Windows XP SP2 RC2 is buggy as heck! (Score:5, Informative)

    by shakamojo ( 518620 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:45PM (#9680032)
    I've been testing SP2 since RC1 and it's still pretty buggy... the new wireless features have issues with certain products from some major manufacturers, the added browser security has (in my case) created more problems than it solves, but the new firewall features and interface are VERY nice. I just hope they work the bugs out before release, as it stands now, it's no where near ready for release to the general public IMHO.

  • Am I reading that right? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bl8n8r ( 649187 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @04:46PM (#9680040)

    "...online and operational (and works with Service Pack 1!).."

    One would think this should be a requirement, it reads like more of a bonus.

  • The RC2.040610-1520 that I downloaded two weeks ago works perfect. On an 600 Mhz Celeron HP Omnibook XE3 with 384 Mb RAM it just works. I installed it since I had some issues with XP before and wanted to clean install the whole machine when I thought of SP2.

    Installed it without a hitch and my system is running smoothly ever since.

    I just hope Microsoft will let people install the final version over the RC2.
  • suggests SP2 will be a support nightmare.

    One company tested the beta and 5,000 remote machines couldn't connect to their home office any more. The CIO said, "It will break the company".

    • Re:Recent Article In InfoWorld (Score:5, Informative)

      by rritterson ( 588983 ) * on Monday July 12, 2004 @05:19PM (#9680460)
      If the CIO is going to do a company-wide roll out of beta software and call it a "test", the CIO is already breaking the company.

      The idea is, you build a small test lab, see what has changed and what won't work, then you create new group policy objects to handle it. You then disable the GPO until you create a new GPO that deploys SP2 to the machines. Both GPO's go live automatically, and you've covered your ass. Geez, maybe I should be CIO.
  • Runs fine on my system. Has an awesome popup blocker and extra security tools. Not one POP Up gas gotten through.. Yet.

  • Just more hoops? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ps_inkling ( 525251 )
    From the MSDN article:

    When an application that needs to listen on a port or ports is being installed by an administrator, it will need to ask the user if he/she wants to allow the application to open ports in the firewall. If the user consents to this, then the application should use the INetFwV4AuthorizedApplication API to add itself to the AuthorizedApplications collection as enabled. If the user does not consent, then the application should use the INetFwV4AuthorizedApplication API to add itself to the

  • Uh-oh

    *snip*

    Windows Update cannot continue because a required service application is disabled. Windows Update requires the following services:
    Automatic Updates enables detection, downloading, and installation of critical updates for your computer.
    Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) enables faster, restartable downloading of updates.
    Event Log logs Windows Update events for troubleshooting. To ensure that these services are enabled:
    *snap*

    so much for turning off services that you dont want and run

  • This couldn't have worked out better. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 3vi1 ( 544505 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @05:16PM (#9680424) Homepage Journal
    This couldn't have worked out better if the Linux community had planned it. 1) Numerous recent IE exploits convinced thousands of people to try different browsers. These people (and likely a lot of their friends) have now realized that IE != The Internet. 2) Now, MS cuts off security updates to some of those users and other users who either got XP from a friend or bought a "bargain" PC from a fly-by-night outfit that used corporate keys. 3) The type of people mentioned in #2 don't like paying a lot for stuff. What are they going to do now as an upgrade path?: Try Linux for free, and/or pay several hundred dollars for an XP license? Now, ever Linux user out there, here's your mission: Burn a dozen copies of Knoppix and hand them out to everyone that has issues with SP2. I see converts in them thar hills.
    • Arrrghhh HTML formatting (sorry). Here's a humanly readable version:

      This couldn't have worked out better if the Linux community had planned it.

      1) Numerous recent IE exploits convinced thousands of people to try different browsers. These people (and likely a lot of their friends) have now realized that IE != The Internet.

      2) Now, MS cuts off security updates to some of those users and other users who either got XP from a friend or bought a "bargain" PC from a fly-by-night outfit that used corporate key
  • You know, I spesificaly remember hearing that windows would no longer require service packs...

  • Whoa! I dodged a bullet on that one! (Score:5, Funny)

    by jannesha ( 441851 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @05:24PM (#9680525)
    I'm leaving my tech support job at the end of July. Thank you, Microsoft, for delaying the SP2 release until August!

    Woo-hoo!

  • Dear Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SamMichaels ( 213605 )
    After reading about XP SP2 and Windows Update v5 on Slashdot, I had a chance to play around with them. While I'm impressed at both the operating system and the updater as of late, I have to be honest and say you've failed to address the number one problem plaguing the computer industry: ignorance.

    The average Joe--your primary customer--doesn't know about Windows Update. This person doesn't know about service packs. This person doesn't care to know. In fact, when you tell this person about how critical

  • compatibility? (Score:3, Informative)

    by BeatdownGeek ( 687929 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @06:04PM (#9680929) Homepage
    I did quite a bit of testing on SP2 to verify that it works with our (fairly large) enterprise web app. The app uses ActiveX, offscreen pages, popups of all sorts, etc... The only thing that had to be changed for compatibility was the URL had to be added to the "trusted sites" zone. That's it. Not a whole lot of compatibility problems.

    On the server side, it took about 5 minutes to configure the firewall to allow the web and/ or database server to listen for incoming connections. Again, not really a big deal.

    I think the only place there will be compatibility problems is on the "install this great free adware/ dialer" pages. But then again, social engineering and uninformed users are the source of most of the problems anyway. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't really like MS either, but I think the compatibility fears with SP2 are somewhat overblown.

  • I'm unimpress with XP SP2 RC2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @07:40PM (#9681682)
    My system: HP pavilion ze4200, Laptop, XP-home, 1.7ghz celuron, 192mb ram.

    I did a fresh rebuild, the system seemed to be very snappy. I loaded XP SP2 RC2, system seems to run noticable worse.

    It seems to take longer to boot to the point where it is usable. After I long on, it seems to several minutes before I can do anything. It froze up on me to where I had to yank the battery - which is something it never used to do. Everything feels more sluggish. Maybe it would be different with a higher end system.

    Also, I don't see how to turn off new features, such as firewall, or virus checker.

  • The SIZE of this thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by SeriousEyePanda ( 792822 ) on Monday July 12, 2004 @08:56PM (#9682200)
    "Although the final size of Service Pack 2 is not set, the most recent beta was a beefy 264 Gbytes. Because of that size, the service pack will also be available as a free CD mailed to users who request it, Poole promised."

    from InformationWeek [informationweek.com]

    Need I say that's pretty beefy!

  • I followed the link to step up to v5 of windows update on my girlfriends system.

    A few minutes ago the system informed me about a new update. It's installing "Windows XP Service Pack 2" as I type. This is the earliest August release Microsoft has ever had.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close