Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


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

Microsoft has Delayed SP2, Again 425

Posted by CmdrTaco from the back-to-the-drawing-board dept.
I_am_Rambi writes "According to news.com.com "Microsoft has again delayed a long-awaited update to Windows XP, citing quality concerns. The company had planned to wrap up development this week on Windows XP Service Pack 2, but a Microsoft representative said late Wednesday that the software giant had decided that more work was needed on the update before if could be released to manufacturing." Yea, if 3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up, it needs some polishing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft has Delayed SP2, Again More

Microsoft has Delayed SP2, Again

Comments Filter:

  • FYI: The SP2 RC2 problems are spyware related (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:33PM (#9891659)
    The whole "three out of five machines failed to come back up" after installing SP2 RC2 should not frighten you from trying it.

    The original article [crn.com] said quit clearly that the problem they had was that they'd get a bluescreen and "A message stated that 'winserv' was missing."

    What the article didn't say was what "winserv" actually is. It's not part of Windows. In fact, it is spyware. [trendmicro.com] Plain and simple.

    So the problem, then, with Windows XP SP2 RC2 is that it doesn't work when the operating system has been corrupted beyond repair by spyware that hooks into various DLLs and services in an attempt to prevent itself from being uninstalled.

    • NOO!!!! BLASPHEMY! WINDOZE SUX. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I refuse to believe this. You must be spouting FUD, you astroturfer!

      How dare you imply that something is not M$ Windoze fault, heretic? Everyone knows that Winbloze boxen are terrible and crash, and GNU/Linux boxen own.

      Get out of here, M$ shill!

    • Re:FYI: The SP2 RC2 problems are spyware related (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:39PM (#9891769) Journal
      That sure says a lot about the system restore and anticorruption tech that microsoft said was a reason for upgrading to XP.

    • Nope (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:40PM (#9891791)
      My Install of SP2 RC1 caused explorer.exe to crash on start up. I also took about 10mins for XP to boot and login. There is no spyware/trojans on my computer.

    • Users will see it as Microsoft's problem anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:41PM (#9891810)

      "So the problem, then, with Windows XP SP2 RC2 is that it doesn't work when the operating system has been corrupted beyond repair by spyware that hooks into various DLLs and services in an attempt to prevent itself from being uninstalled."

      So if, say, 1/3 of all WinXP boxes out there are currently infected with spyware (probably a conservative guess), then 1/3 of all users applying XP SP2 would crash?

      I'd say that makes it Microsoft's problem. Users aren't going to care, all they will see is that before XP SP2 their system worked, and after it didn't.

      • It also makes for a nice opportunity to clean that stuff up (for those of us who charge to do so :)
      • So now MS has to make its OS work with spyware? If I let someone I don't trust work on my car, and they screw it up to the point that when I start it next time it blows up, is that GM's fault? Its my fault for letting that idiot work on it. If spyware causes the system to crash, its the users fault for not taking proper precautions. Users can whine and moan about it all they want, it doesn't change anything.
        • Your attitude is well justified, but I think the folks at Microsoft would not agree with you. It would be a PR nightmare for them even though, technically speaking, they're not at fault. My guess is that they're trying to figure out ways to deal with this whole mess gracefully.
        • So now MS has to make its OS work with spyware?

          Yes, whether or not it's their fault. The spyware is out there. If parts of the service pack rely on parts of the operating system that could not be secured from 'winserv', then the service pack needs to reaffirm that those DLLs & registry settings are intact.

          It's a challenge, but unfortunately it's a challenge that they have to cope with.
        • and microsoft can whine and moan about it all they want, it doesn't change that the users will have defect computers and more important lost data
          and will blame microsoft for it
          they are not liable for it but they will be blamed anyway
          btw .. it would be the idiots fault to work on your car without knowing what to do, so your idiot would be to blame
          in case of spyware you trust the idiot because he is lying to you or you don't even know he works on your car
    • I sure hope that SP2 gets released by Sept. 7. That's when the girls come back to school here. That's when they bring their spyware-infected, unpatched systems to school.

      I feel for the schools starting before us (most of them). Patching a medium speed laptop can take HOURS now. Hopefully MS will be able to get this out soon because otherwise, patching incoming systems is going to take twice as long...

      • Re:This may suck... (Score:4, Funny)

        by jazman_777 ( 44742 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @03:50PM (#9893422) Homepage
        I sure hope that SP2 gets released by Sept. 7. That's when the girls come back to school here. That's when they bring their spyware-infected, unpatched systems to school.

        Let's see, the girls come back to school, they need computing help, you are the man on the job, and you don't see the opportunity there? Must be a /. geek...

    • While I agree with you on face, that the problem isn't inherent in the patch damaging clean installs of Windows, this still doesn't remove the fact that SP2 RC2 will damage a significant portion of consumer boxes.

      Microsoft created a product that allows random spyware programs to, as you put it, corrupt beyond repair various DLLs and services. No OS should allow itself to be damaged so irrevocably far.

      On point though, I think that it should frighten people from trying it. If your claim is that spyware is

  • it's "imminent" (Score:5, Funny)

    by ack154 ( 591432 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:33PM (#9891661)
    Reuters had an article about this [reuters.com] too.
    "
    Redmond, Washington-Microsoft originally had planned to deliver the final production version of Service Pack 2 (SP2) to computer makers on Wednesday, but instead said the update would be release "imminently," possibly within days."

    "imminently" ... so that's how long in "Microsoft" days? November?

  • Missed their goal (Score:5, Funny)

    by b12arr0 ( 3064 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:33PM (#9891673) Homepage
    I heard they were after a "4 out of 5" failure rate.

  • Thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:33PM (#9891674)
    Working for a broadband provider, I really wasn't looking forward to walking customers thru troubleshooting after their machines were hosed... this delay shoudl buy me enough time to find a new job.
    • No kidding, now that firewalls are going to be enabled by default I think alot of the ISP's are basically just going to shut down with all that viral activity... missing... yea.

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darth_MALL ( 657218 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:33PM (#9891675)
    Nice to see a much-hyped rollout delayed as a quality control measure. From Microsoft no less. Step in the right direction PR-wise if you ask me.

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shotfeel ( 235240 )
      Just for perspectice, PR-wise aren't all delays pretty much billed as a "quality control measure"? You'll never hear any company say the delay is because they can't figure out how to fix a bug.

      MS Says : We're delaying release to make sure the software is up to our quality control levels.

      I Hear : We still have several killer bugs we haven't figured out yet so tell everyone the delay is because we care about the users, not because we're incompetent.

      Either way you read it, its always about quality (and spin

  • Credit (Score:4, Funny)

    by ParticleMan911 ( 688473 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:34PM (#9891680) Homepage
    Come on, you've got to give Microsoft some credit. They used most of their resources to get Windows ME up and running flawlessly a few years back. They're only now shifting their man-power from the ME development squadron to the XP one.
  • Rewriting the entire OS? That might explain why there is such a big gap between XP and when Longhorn is coming out LOL.
    • That's pretty much what it is, I guess. SP2 is almost 300MB in size.

  • I know it's popular to slag Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:34PM (#9891695) Homepage Journal
    But here it won't make sense, because not only are they making the system more secure but they're working to ensure the security doesn't break compatibility.

    If a bunch of machines won't boot -- even if it's the fault of the developers of third-party software as we've seen with faulty drivers impacting Windows 98 -- people will be slow to adopt what is perhaps the most critical software patch the Internet has seen.

  • Now how will I protect my machine when I am forced to boot into windows to play Duke Nukem Forever?

  • An improvement (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bull999999 ( 652264 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:34PM (#9891703) Journal
    3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up

    I guess MS was right when they said that Win XP SP2 is more recure. You can't infect a computer that's down.

  • Good For Them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by USAPatriot ( 730422 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:35PM (#9891706) Homepage
    Microsoft has decided not to rush a release just for the sake of releasing it.

    They want to get it right the first time. I congratulate them for doing the Right Thing and making sure they deliver a rock solid Service Pack for the millions of XP users out there.

    Before the slashdot editors and crowd crow over this delay, just remember the 503 errors and flakiness this site has experienced since "maintenance" was performed. Don't throw stones in glass houses, kids.

    • Re:Good For Them (Score:4, Funny)

      by wolfemi1 ( 765089 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:46PM (#9891896)
      They want to get it right the first time

      First time? This is Service Pack 2. They missed "get it right the first time" by two revisions!
      • "First time? This is Service Pack 2. They missed "get it right the first time" by two revisions!"

        Yeah, Linux and OSX have been done with security updates for years now. Windows needs to catch up.

    • Re:Good For Them (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by gosand ( 234100 )
      Microsoft has decided not to rush a release just for the sake of releasing it.

      They want to get it right the first time. I congratulate them for doing the Right Thing and making sure they deliver a rock solid Service Pack for the millions of XP users out there.

      They should not be congratulated for doing the Right Thing. That is how they should do things all the time. And with quality like "3 of 5 machine not coming back up", it didn't sound like it was too difficult of a decision to make.


      Before the sl

    • Re:Good For Them (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Agreed, it's essential that they get this right before they release it because every WinXP using man and his dog with a iota of a clue about patching is going to be installing it. The other problem with SP2 is the people that are eagerly awaiting this patch are probably not responsible for the bulk of compromised PCs that are hammering my firewall with probes to ports 135 and 445.

      If Microsoft is now as serious about security as they claim then they should get this patch right *and* rescind their earlier

  • The code knocking out the l33t lamerz copies with stolen corporate codes is problably not knocking out 100% of the stolen installations yet.
  • ...Linux and OS X pick up three. If they don't get their house in order soon, they are going to have more to worry about than browser marketshare.
    • Wait, can you show me some statistics on why people who don't understand what the SP2 patch does anyways, would make this sudden and drastic switch to linux you are talking about?
      • It's a promise unfulfilled - that's all. They tell us to keep waiting and keep waiting...meanwhile the competition is steadily improving and innovating. Longhorn in 2006? Will that get bumped to 2007?

        Come on, man - you have to see that this is a dangerous time for them.

        • Re:With every missed step... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by poohsuntzu ( 753886 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:48PM (#9891924) Homepage
          No, I really don't. So they keep pushing dates back. Who cares? Do you honestly think that the majority of Windows users hangs on the edge of their seat about new updates like a typical geek?

          No. They don't. And chances are, most could care less about Longhorn, and even more don't mind that it is pushed back because computing isn't a large part of their life. So it won't matter how fast linux improves, nor how far back Windows get's pushed. -Right now- Windows works perfectly for a good number of people, and it does what they need. There is no incentive for the flood of Windows users to care whether its in 2004 or 2006, because in their mind they know one thing: "We will get it when it is released".

          And no, I don't see this as a dangerous time for them.

          • Re:With every missed step... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:00PM (#9892061) Homepage Journal
            Certainly these minor push backs on SP2 are largely irrelevant, but Longhorn delays are an issue. Microsoft is worried about Longhorn delays - I beleive they have started dropping proposed features to get it out the door earlier. Sure, no one is going to wipe windows and install Linux instead of waiting for Longhorn, but if Longhorn is too long coming and the Linux desktop starts looking attractive enough you might get a few more OEMs loading it on (HP now has Linux laptops for instance). Should that actually happen you'll get people "converting" to linux simply by upgrding their computer, and to be frank, if all they do is browse the web, write email, and use Word for trivial things occasionally, they aren't really going to notice a whole lot of difference. Should anything other than Windows get much of a real foothold Microsoft will have cause to worry. It's all about "mindshare" not market share. Once other options are widely seen to be both available and viable some serious rebalancing of market share could occur quickly. Sure, Microsoft will still be dominant in such a shakeup, but we might be looking more at 70% to 30% split between Microsoft and everything else. Once that happens they really will have to compete and compete hard.

            There are things to worry about for Microsoft. For now things are under control, but it only requires some small slips for things to get away from them.

            Jedidiah.
        • >It's a promise unfulfilled

          And MS was never mistaken before? How is this oen different?

          >you have to see that this is a dangerous time for them.

          When was it NOT a dangerous time for MS? How is this time more dangerous than others?

          How is it it not a dangerous time for OSX and Linux?

    • This is exactly what they are doing. By taking the time to make sure that the patch is "in order", they are avoiding an even bigger backlash if they released a buggy patch.

  • How configurable is the SP? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greg Larkin ( 696202 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:40PM (#9891788) Homepage
    I read in the paper this morning that SP2 will be doing things like turning on the WinXP firewall by default and gawd knows what else. Does anyone know if we'll be able to easily see all of its proposed "helpful" actions and disable the ones we don't want? For instance, I already have a hardware firewall, so I don't need the software firewall to be enabled.
    • http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=283 673
    • Greg, you may want to reconsider your opinion on this, depending on the network environment in which you live. I work as a network administrator at a public library and have been very anxious to run a software firewall on all workstations. We are a pure Windows 2000 network and have moved our XP migration up just to gain the software firewall. Granted, I have separated most public access computers from staff resources via VLANS, but the public still needs access to some critical systems. Our staff is co

    • I know. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bmajik ( 96670 ) <matt@mattevans.org> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:09PM (#9892179) Homepage Journal
      I've run a few RC builds of XP SP2 on 2 different machines.

      Configuring the firewall is _easy_.

      I too have real firewalls. I leave the SP2 one turned on as well, because it hasn't gotten in the way of anything i do with the machines (yet). I did add a port or two to the allow list, and thats it.

      Remember, defense in depth. Having every XP machine tightened up out of the box as much or more as a default linux install is a good thing.

      But, you can turn the firewall features off _very_ easily.

      I really like the popup blocker and other IE changes in SP2 as well. I've stopped using proxomitron. I see inline ads where prox used to just put [Ad] but that doesn't bother since the super obnoxious stuff is gone. Also, the way IE handles ActiveX controls is _much_ nicer than it used to be - no being asked 23049 times per page to dismiss modal dialogs.

      finally, i wouldn't get too worked up over the headline that XP SP2 is delayed. I have some inside info on the delay.. and its (so far) not worth the sensational press its getting at sites with.. ABM slants :)

      People need to be honest. If MS said there's a problem and released it anyway, the ABM camp would grill them for releasing shitty unfinished product. By holding it for a while longer, MS gets grilled for delaying its release (with sideline comments about them being incompetant or SP2 being vapor or what have you). To the ABMer, MS can do nothing right.

      (ABM = "Anything But Microsoft" :)

    • For instance, I already have a hardware firewall, so I don't need the software firewall to be enabled.

      Does your hardware firewall protect you from other computers on your local network, or just from the Internet connection? It's getting to the point that all computers should really have software firewalls installed to augment the hardware firewalls. A lot of companies and universities have been noticing recently that their hardware firewalls don't cut it. Just like in the real world, much of the damage ca

  • Perhaps they were busy (Score:4, Funny)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoo.cLIONom minus cat> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:42PM (#9891828) Journal
    stealing the code from the iPhoto 4.0.2 update.

  • Good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) * <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:42PM (#9891831) Homepage Journal
    ..I mean anyone else remember service pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0? Talk about run for the hills day when that came out.

    I'd prefer they get their stuff together instead of rushing to market. Though personally the service pack thing to me is more of a PITA than patching the various subsystems and then creating a 'roll up' service pack vs. the service pack being the 'holy grail' update all at once breaking/changing things willy nilly (at least that is how it seems some days)

  • Windows Update (Score:5, Funny)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:43PM (#9891837) Homepage Journal
    I was just at the windows update site to update fixes on a PC.

    On the welcome screen, it tells you what you can do to get Windows XP Service Pack 2.

    It doesn't say wait and pray.

  • SP2 Name Convention (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .stnapyffuprm.> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:43PM (#9891838)
    "In other news Microsoft has announced that WinXP SP2 has been internally renamed "Longhorn" to more closely coincide with their projected release schedules."
  • This is something I am not rushing to put on my XP.
    I will probably wait an additional amount of time equal to how long it is taking to get SP2 out to make sure their constant silent updates to SP2 are all ironed out and finally made stable.
    Im thinking by then Longhorn should be near if not already released.

  • Dupe!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by wolfemi1 ( 765089 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:43PM (#9891850)
    HA! This is a duplicate!

    Oh, wait, it was delayed again?!

  • Windows problems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:44PM (#9891863) Homepage Journal
    Every 'softie I've heard from who has seen the Windows code base has said the same thing: it is a labyrinthine collection of objects and subsystems that nobody really understands at a high level. It's actually a miracle that the whole thing builds in the first place. So when they change a few things for a service pack, a dozen other things break.

    Microsoft deserves these problems. Their software is too tightly integrated. The benefit of having highly modular software is that problems tend to not spread beyond a single module or subsystem.

    • Re:Windows problems (Score:3, Insightful)

      by js3 ( 319268 )
      obviously these softies work in little teams mostly independent from each other. The few softies I know who directly work on the OS (and many softies don't) usually work in specialized area.. like the driver subsystem and what not. It is entirely reasonable that a guy who does drivers wouldn't have much of an insight on how other parts of the system work

  • Goose Sauce (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:45PM (#9891888) Homepage Journal

    Trying to be fair-minded about updates and what we'll call minor rev level releases to the OS (remember all the waiting for Godot that occurred for Linux 2.4.0 and 2.6.0), I think it is a good thing if MS doesn't release SP2 until it feels comfortable that it's ready and secure.

    The key difference, of course, is that knowledgeable and concerned XP sysadmins might want to expedite patches to their systems faster than MS would like and be willing to suffer other problems and risks that MS doesn't feel would be good for the general sysadmin population to experience.

    Now, if the Windows source tree and nightly builds were available, then those admins would be free to update at their own risk, an option they don't have because the OS source must remain under proprietary lock and key.

  • If there is one software company... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nuttles ( 625038 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:46PM (#9891894)
    Out of all the software compainies in the world, Microsoft is the company that has the resources to build and maintain software right. They definitely have the talent. I think the issue here is big corporation politics. Microsoft should put more of an investment into their public image (at least try to get an image comparable to lets say Google). Sure, it may not give them as big as returns pumping more people into the XP camp (service pak 2) and less into lets say Long horn, but get step one right before going to step two. The trust they will gain by the public would earn them money in the future...probably more than their current practices.

    Nuttles

    Christian and proud of it
    • Microsoft should put more of an investment into their public image

      Bah! Talk about throwing money down the crapper!

      There is absolutely nothing that Microsoft could do or say to make me like/respect them as a company, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment. They have pumped out shitty software for too long and made too many false claims about the quality of said software. Hell, I've made a career out of cleaning up the mess when their shoddy products shit the bed, and my boss has built a multimillion dol

  • I work at Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:48PM (#9891921)
    People are installing SP2 internally all over the place and I certainly haven't heard of "3 out of 5" computers dying. In fact I haven't heard anything bad at all.

    I have been running SP2 since RC1 with no problems myself.

    • Re:I work at Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:12PM (#9892218)

      "People are installing SP2 internally all over the place and I certainly haven't heard of "3 out of 5" computers dying. In fact I haven't heard anything bad at all."

      Then maybe you should email Ballmer and tell him the delay isn't needed, and he should just get some balls and release it.

      Or maybe, just maybe, the average user that's going to have to install this thing doesn't benefit from a huge Redmond IT staff, firewalls, NATs, etc.

      No offense, but if this is the typical thought in Redmond cubicals ("Works for me! Must be rock-solid!") then the last 15+ years of Microsoft treating their users as beta testers makes a lot more sense.

      • You don't understand what "support" we get for an install like this. We get an e-mail from JimA or BrianV with a pointer and a request to install both at work and at home. That's all. The only case when anything special happens is if an install blows up -- and the special thing there is a couple of requests: "Please send us your configuration and recent activity. And can we run this software inventory tool on the box, please?"

        Meanwhile, the company runs huge install fests around Redmond, recruiting as
    • MS'ers are saying it's robust for the OS itself, but that it's going to mess up a bunch of things because everyone and their dog was relying on the loopholes in past versions. And it's supposed to get worse with the next security upgrades I've heard. People may not have their machines die on them (word is that the virii, trojans, and spyware's causing the dying machines...) but you're going to have fun trying to use the apps you do have without a BUNCH of tinkering around with registry edits and all- an

  • I am no MS apologist, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chuckw ( 15728 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:56PM (#9892013) Homepage Journal
    No one has ever been able to accuse me of being a Microsoft apologist. I've thrown my fair share of vitriol their way, but I always said what I felt was justified based on their actions.

    In this case, I have to congratulate Microsoft. Yeah, I said it... They deserve a pat on the back for finally realizing, at least in this one instance, that it doesn't pay to release crap software. I doubt this is the beginning of a trend or anything, but for this they deserve a pat on the back.

  • What's the big rush? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:57PM (#9892019)
    Ok, so it's been delayed again... So what? I mean, what's the big rush? Security updates are still coming through windowsupdate whenever they're required. Isn't it better that Microsoft take their time with the service pack and make it solid, rather than they releasing it unfinished?

  • Come on now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kevinmf ( 628527 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @01:57PM (#9892024)

    Come on now - you have to give microsoft some credit. This update is a major overhaul to the OS. Look at kernel updates for linux. You have to be careful as hell, making sure all of your drivers are still compatible, libs all still work, etc etc. SP2 is along the lines of a linux kernel upgrade.

    You really have to give MS some credit because all of their drivers will be working with SP2, as well as most software. Sure, linux upgrades might come out more often, but you have to admit - actually applying them is a lot more intensive than simply clicking 'next, next, next, yes i will reboot now.'

    Anyway, I think people are WAY to hard on MS. For going almost 15 years now and barely breaking backwards compatibility, they seriously deserve more credit than the slashdot crowd gives them. Good luck to em with this new upgrade.

    • Re:Come on now (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shotfeel ( 235240 )
      Is it really a major overhaul?

      Seriously. All the descriptions I've read say it rolls up all the previous security updates and changes some default settings. There may also be some other changes that are hinted at.

      What's so major about it? Seems all the previous security updates should have been fully tested along the way and changing default settings to something any user may have done on their own shouldn't be a big problem IMO.

      I know any type of upgrade is a big job, but I'm still struggling with why M

  • SP2 Automatic Updates service (Score:5, Informative)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:07PM (#9892134)
    I installed SP2 RC2 some time ago.

    It's interesting to note that the 'Automatic Updates' service must be set to 'Automatic' and be running in order for Windows Update to work through IE. Even if you choose not to use Automatic Updates (as I have), you *must* have the service running all the time for Windows Update to work (or change it to Automatic each time before going to Windows Update in IE). Rather annoying.

  • This just in: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:10PM (#9892192)
    "3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up"

    We've just recieved word that 3 out of 5 Windows systems use a commonly pirated CD-KEY.

    DeMe

    • Re:This just in: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sinner0423 ( 687266 )
      "3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up"

      We've just recieved word that 3 out of 5 Windows systems use a commonly pirated CD-KEY.

      Funny you mention that.. Windows Update is now upgraded to "version 5" which prohibits updates from pirated keys [microsoft.com]. So, the only way to get SP2, would be to apply it manually. Even then, i'm not sure it would allow an install. I believe they rolled out that new update site to coincide with the release of the now delayed SP2.

  • roll other software packages into SP2 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by insomnyuk ( 467714 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:24PM (#9892400) Journal
    Wouldn't it be fantastic if the SP2 updater would first run Ad-Aware or an equivalent and kill all the spywarer on the machine before installing the actual updates? After rebooting, users would be astonished by how quickly Windows would work.

    'Holy Crap Maude, my WeatherBug is gone but this thing shore is runnin quick!'

  • Multisession! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:50PM (#9892730) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, SP2 to XP is to include real multisessioning to Windows! Not just "switch user", one works, one waits, but true "two users at once"! Just like in original UNIX in on PDP-11!
    Well, almost. The catch word is "two".

  • Good security (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nahor ( 41537 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @02:51PM (#9892747)
    Yea, if 3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up, it needs some polishing.
    Yes, until 5 out of 5 machines fail to come back up, there will be security issues.
    The thing I don't understand is why it takes so long to prevent all machines from booting....

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close