Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the cut-off dept.

372

tophee writes "ZDNet reports that support for Windows XP SP1 and SP1a will be ending this coming Tuesday. From the article: 'Microsoft will end support for Windows XP Service Pack 1 and SP1a on Tuesday, leaving people no option but to upgrade to Service Pack 2 if they wish to continue to receive crucial components, including security software.' Colin Barker of ZDNet notes, 'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'"

cancel ×

372 comments

And once again... (0, Flamebait)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374559)

Just cut it off while you're only slightly behind...gotta love MS

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (0, Flamebait)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374595)

Slightly behind? SP1 is 4 years old!

Name me ONE linux distro that is supporting a release that is 4 years old! You can't get support for more than 6-12 months these days!

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (2, Insightful)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374605)

yeah...and how much did you pay for linux? :-p

Of course...gov't agencies and other large entities will get whatever support they pay for...which means they can get SP1 support if SP2 screws up their software.

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (2, Informative)

roseblood (631824) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374737)

'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1

Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'.

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (-1, Troll)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374775)

You can have a CD of it sent to you for around $5-$10. Not that it matters to you - I'm sure you're either running SP2, Vista, or Linux anyhow. Hey everyone! Lets make a big issue out of something that only theoretically might affect some people! We can use it to make Microsoft look bad!

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (1)

Compaq_Hater (911468) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375059)

No, Microsoft can make themselves look bad without our help :).

CH

Re:And once again... (you're correct) (0, Troll)

chawly (750383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375163)

Microsoft needs no help to make themselves look bad. And I can't see how we can make them look good.

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (2, Insightful)

roseblood (631824) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375089)

You have to understand that is not me. But it does describe something like 30% of home PC users (if you consider that a recent news report said DSL/CABLE has a market penetration of fourty-some percent of home PC users, and a good majority of home PC users will be using windows XP.) People like that will not be aware of the existance of 'service packs.' They will not know the value of such things and will not know that microsoft offers to send you SP2 on a disk. They most likely will not be knowledgeabl enough to navigate the MS knowledge base to learn any of those facts. These are the people who can not support them selves(IE: they aren't slashdot readers.)

Jebsis, the world is not slashdot. Every third person in the real world does not contribute to OSS projects. They do not know what the hell Linux is, and they are not even likely to know what Vista is.

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374787)

If someone has that slow of an internet connection, they can always order it on CD [microsoft.com] . Microsoft does charge the cost of shipping, but if someone is so insistant on getting SP2 but cannot download it, I'm sure the cost of shipping ($3-5?) makes it worthwhile. They even suggest that you share the CD with a friend or family member:

"After you have installed Service Pack 2, Microsoft encourages you to give this CD to a friend or family member using Windows XP."

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375075)


"Except for those people who bought and paid for SP1 and do not have a good fast internet connection to download the hundgreds of MBs of patches released to bring SP1 up to the current 'standard'."

And how about those that spend months or more evaluating SP1 for their application, going through some expensive and rigorous certification process, and who have not done the same for SP2? Can they simply take Microsoft's word for it?

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374761)

how much did you pay for SP2?

Yeesh, just upgrade already, and quit your bitching!

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (1)

Caledai (522776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375201)

Well, in the next rollout - which occurs every 3 years, our network of SOE workstation/server combos may be setup for SP2, but only if some older software is decommisioned. Until then - well SP2 breaks numerous software applications in a department where money is always limited. How much does it cost to fix an incompatibility in some software that is used every day in a statewide distribution that was writen over 10 years ago? Or not use SP2. Easy choice.

Nevermind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374625)

The zealots will come up with all kinds of unrealistic and uninformed reasons why it's all bad anyway....

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (4, Informative)

AndyCater (726464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374655)

Debian Stable - release cycle on about 18 months and support for up to a year after that. Debian repositories and archives have versions back about ten years - so you should always be able to upgrade. Debian testing and unstable are updated at least daily - stable only when there are security fixes. If you mean "paid for" enterprise Linux then Red Hat is now at 7 years or so support - but stuff changes with the interim updates as far as I can see.

Re:And once again... (you can say that again!) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374697)

The support you pay for for Red Hat is only good on their LATEST released version. They do NOT support versions that are 7 years old. Not even close!

Re:And once again... (you're correct) (1)

chawly (750383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375185)

Notice that Red Hat has a gestation period of less than 7 years. (Just a thought to follow yours.}

Re:And once again... (4, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374613)

I always figure that end of support meant Microsoft determined they finally got it right, and why mess with perfection? SP2 otoh is still a work in progress...and does it need more work...

Lots of people still use W98... (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374935)

Forced obsolesence is an attempt to force peopleto move on up. DOing this to XP is to help build the mindset that XP is old and it is time to think about Vista...

However, lots of people are still using W98, so their obsolecence program is not necessarily working all that well in personal user space. I'm sure that in corporate space (where they make their money) it works a treat.

Re:Lots of people still use W98... (1)

westyx (95706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375237)

It will not magically stop working, like windows 98 didn't magically stop working after support ended. There is no forced obsolesence here.

Bring out your dead! (0)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374563)

The end is nigh!

Re:Bring out your dead! (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374921)

But Windows 95 still run fine! Runs finer than the OSes for some mainframes!

Windows what? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374565)

Who uses windows anymore? I thought that died out long ago...

Re:Windows what? (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374803)

Who uses windows anymore? I thought that died out long ago...
What? Has Netcraft confirmed that?

Re:Windows what? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374939)

They still build windows in buildings. I don't think windows will ever go out of style.

Re:Windows what? (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375033)

What, are you living in a castle? :-p

They forgot the scare quotes (4, Funny)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374571)

around "security".

The problem (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374575)

The problem with Microsoft is that they never separate bug fixes from feature additions. So either you stay vulnerable or you eat more and more of their junk.

They should be forced to strictly separate the two.

Re:The problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374689)

In most cases, Microsoft seperates them very clearly. If you are referring to service packs specifically, then a couple things I can think of with SP2 were very much needed. A real firewall and pop-up blocker. If you really don't like those features, then they are easy to disable. One might make the claim that it is not very easy for the "average user" to disable. If that is the case, the "average user" probably doesn't give a shit about disabling it in the first place.

Re:The problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374891)

Last time I checked, we were still a capitalist society (at least mostly so). As such, why should Microsoft be forced to strictly separate the two? It's their business, their money, their decision on what to include or not include in their various releases of software. If you don't like their products, or the way they market, deliver, support, or license them, don't use them. I am so sick of hearing people complain about Microsoft! Sure, their software is buggy. Sure, they often act like a huge corporate behemoth.

But even so, I don't see by what authority you can assert that Microsoft must separate bug fixes from new features.

because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16375031)

well, apart from copyright NOT being a capitalist system, there are changes in the way the OS operates: you bought and agreed an EULA at purchase. They then changes this EULA when they brought out SP2 and you had to agree to THOSE changes.
As well, what if you don't wan WGA installed?

Or can I, since I don't accept the SP2 EULA return the product for a refund? Theyve had use of my money to produce more moolah, and it's not as if the bits have worn out...

Re:The problem (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375049)

Are you saying a bug can't be a feature?!

Jeez, critics these days!

Re:The problem (4, Informative)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375141)

"Are you saying a bug can't be a feature?!"

With Microsoft it can!

And a "feature" can be a bug. One reason the holdouts have avoided SP2 is that Microsoft intentionally degraded the networking with SP2 [microsoft.com] . Yes it's fixable, but not perfectly, and I'm not sure I care to bother with it.

This is one of the long-planned milestones on my migration to another OS (references to which have become a cliché in this connection).

Many of the fixes aren't even needed for a lean-and-mean XP configuration, so the time to an "upgrade or exposure" choice may be longer than this month.

Re:The problem (1)

Bueller_007 (535588) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375077)

As I recall, that used to be the rule at MS. SPs were for bug fixes only. That changed with XP.

Re:The problem (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375209)

The problem with Microsoft is that they never separate bug fixes from feature additions. So either you stay vulnerable or you eat more and more of their junk.

Name a feature addition in SP2 that's a showstopper for you. For all time I used SP2, I never found a problem with it, and I use and test a lot of software almost every day.

WGA (5, Insightful)

Paxtez (948813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374577)

Not having to install WGA seems like a good reason...

Re:WGA (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374663)

You don't need to install WGA to get SP2.

Re:WGA (2, Informative)

Paxtez (948813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374745)

I just upgraded to SP2 yesterday, at windowsupdate they wouldn't let me advance without installing an 'important system update'. I had two options, install or leave.

Re:WGA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374813)

Download it from here [microsoft.com] .

Re:WGA (1)

Psykosys (667390) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374947)

I think that he meant that you must install WGA after upgrading to SP2 in order to get continued (non-critical) Windows updates, not that you need it to install SP2 in the first place.

Re:WGA (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375047)

Of course that gives him the option of installing WGA, possibly getting a false-positive and being locked out of updates or not installing WGA and being definitely locked out of updates.

With Ubuntu and SUSE, who needs Windows? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374667)

These days, Ubuntu and SUSE provide a desktop environment that is far superior to that offered by Windows. Best of all, they don't have any WGA nonsense, and they're far easier to keep up-to-date and secure.

A lot of people will argue that if they can't run their Windows applications on Ubuntu or SUSE, then it's useless to them. But what they don't consider is that using Linux isn't about running Windows applications. It's about enjoying the benefits of the alternatives. In some cases, such as Firefox and OpenOffice.org, those very users are already using such alternatives. And if there is some odd Windows application that does not have an open source or Linux-compatible equivalent, then WINE is worth a try. It has really matured lately, and is suitable for running many of even the most complex of Windows applications. Cedega works wonders for games, even those that were just released.

With the quality of Ubuntu and SUSE today, there is no reason for any user to become a victim to Microsoft, whether it be in the form of WGA, or DRM, or even being denied critical updates.

Heh (-1, Flamebait)

DJHewi1025 (892912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374581)

Yet another reason to switch to linux. You'll get support for a lot longer.

Re:Heh (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374615)

yeah you'll be constantly upgrading to get fixes and patches and.. :P

Re:Heh (1, Funny)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374637)

Well, you'll at least get told to RTFM for a lot longer than Windows.

Re:Heh (1)

j3richo (674251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374653)

by a lot longer, you mean the 18 months you'll get if you use the most popular linux distro?

Re:Heh (2, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374687)

Ubuntu Dapper 6.06 LTS... LTS stands for Long Term Support. 4 years desktop, 5 years server... [ubuntu.com]
Ubuntu is a free, open source Linux-based operating system that starts with the breadth of Debian and adds regular releases (every six months), a clear focus on the user and usability (it should "Just Work", TM) and a commitment to security updates with 18 months of support for every release (and with 6.06 LTS you get 3 years on the desktop and 5 on the server!).

Re:Heh (2, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374823)

Ubuntu Dapper was released nigh on ... four months ago. How many distros that were flying high five years ago exist now, in the same state of 'repair'? Yggdrasil? Slackware? Etc? Anyone can 'commit' to anything. I can commit to providing "security updates for Achromatix for the next century!", but it doesn't really count for a lot only four months after release. They're hardly bound to it, even remotely.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374657)

I hope you're being sarcastic..

Seriously it's so dry I can't even tell.

Re:Heh (5, Funny)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374681)

I gave up on linux when the device drivers for one device needed a version of the kernel no later than X and the device drivers for a different device needed a version of the kernel at least as new as Y, where X was less than Y.

Re:Heh (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374989)

Yes, not like my laser printer that requires Windows 98 or earlier to work at all, or my camera that requires Windows 2000 or later.

I choose linux.

Re:Heh (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375085)

I had to pick between a hard drive controller and a video card.

I choose Windows.

(Also, seriously, a printer? How can 2000/XP possibly not have a compatible driver for a printer?)

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375101)

The difference being that your laser printer is of a model no newer than 1998 and your camera is no older than 1999. You chose to buy that camera at a later date, and the fact that it requires a newer OS is simply a matter of course.

The joy of Linux is that two hardware pieces, both from 2005, can have mutually exclusive kernel requirements. And God help you if you want to change your video/network card after initial configuration...drivers for one might require you to upgrade and the other may well fail to install because the version you just installed is too new. Try undoing those changes for a REAL treat.

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

Tod DeBie (522956) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374685)

Yet another reason to switch to linux. You'll get support for a lot longer.
XP SP1 came out what, four plus years ago? What release of Linux was current then? 2.4? Can you still get timely support and bug fixes for 2.4 based releases?

Re:Heh (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374729)

Why don't you look for yourself?

The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.33.3 2006-08-31 20:20 UTC
The latest prepatch for the 2.4 Linux kernel tree is: 2.4.34-pre4 2006-10-02 20:45 UTC

Seems pretty recent to me.

http://www.kernel.org/ [kernel.org]

--
BMO

Re:Heh (0)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375267)

The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.33.3 2006-08-31 20:20 UTC
The latest prepatch for the 2.4 Linux kernel tree is: 2.4.34-pre4 2006-10-02 20:45 UTC

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Re:Heh (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375105)

In the Unix environment patches do come out on a regular basis however unless the kernel is updated you don't have to reboot. In many ways I actually do support Microsoft for this because you do need to keep your OS (Unix, NT, Linux ... etc) current and sometimes you really have to force your customers to upgrade otherwise they never will.

The problem with MS Service Packs releases is the fact that sometimes the SP causes more issues so care and testing needs to be carried out. Don't think this does not apply in the *nix area because it does so you should never be an early adopter unless you do have a good testing environment. Patch testing in the *nix area appears to be more acceptable to management than the same type of testing in MS Windows so it is normally easier to organise an outage.

If you look at commercial Unix support, this is normally available if your OS is two or less releases behind equally applied to both OS version and patch release. However I will admit that you can get support for earlier releases but only if you are willing to pay extra and this is normally stated in the service contact.

As for Linux 2.4 kernel, most recent commercial(Redhat and Suse) and non-commercial releases (CentOS ... etc) are now 2.6 and have been so for well over a year, however the 2.4 kernel is still supported for earlier Linux distributions.

Windows98 (4, Funny)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374627)

Well, Windows 98 had a much longer life!
Was it a better ... ehm ... operating system?

Look Out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374631)

Got on Vans but they look like sneakers

gotta add something before it gets out of control (3, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374647)

M$ didn't do this to shut down pirates... they know that people will easily get around any protection they can muster. Its so they can work less and concentrate on other things - and to not worry about the people who havn't bothered installing SP2 yet for some reason.

Makes sense (4, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374659)

It makes sense as people have had a long time to test their apps against XP SP2 and report bugs to MS. Of course if SP2 breaks anything and you're a paying customer then I can understand why you'd want to stay on SP1 otherwise SP2 offers some advanages.

I think things like WGA are being forced on people whatever version they're running so that's no reason not to upgrade.

When the upgrade is included in the initial purchase cost then this is fine. If they dropped support for XP altogether then that would have been bad but just think of SP2 as an update.

Anyway I hate MS versioning schemes, why service pack why not call it a point release? They also love weird names for their beta software I remember the IE7 beta 2 preview refresh (which was the second pre-release before beta 2)

Re:Makes sense (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374981)

Anyway I hate MS versioning schemes, why service pack why not call it a point release?

Because the average user won't know what you mean by "point release", but (presumably) has an idea of what "service pack" means - they're used to having their car serviced, for a start, making sure that it keeps running properly and doesn't break down.

Re:Makes sense (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375001)

"Anyway I hate MS versioning schemes, why service pack why not call it a point release?"

Because point releases is what Microsoft makes their OS money from, charging hundreds of dollars to upgrade Windows 4.0 to Windows 4.1 (95 to 98) or NT 5.0 to NT 5.1 (2000 to XP). One could make the case that Microsoft uses their odd naming scheme (such as "Vista" for "NT 5.3") mostly to disguise the fact that they're charging more and more money for less and less meaningful version updates.

Re:Makes sense (1, Troll)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375157)

Apple releases 0.1 releases every year and charges $130 for each of them. But of course, they name each one after a wild feline of some sort, "to disguise the fact that they're charging every year for minor updates".

Oh get off it (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375187)

Vista isn't NT 5.3, it's NT 6 and the designation is deserved. It is not a minor update. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista [wikipedia.org] if you don't believe me there's, oh I don't know 50-100 things listed. The ones I find of particular interest are the new DirectX and shader model it brings with it, new audio subsystem, desktop composting engine, volume shadow copy, image based installs, and ReadyBoost/ReadyDrive (flash cache support).

I know that many MS haters would like to believe Vista offers nothing but a shiny UI, but in reality it is a major OS update. You can argue till you are blue in the face if any of those things are going to be useful, but you can't deny that it's big changes.

Re:Makes sense (1)

westyx (95706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375225)

A single point increase of .1 (Windows 4.0 to Windows 4.1) being 3 years worth of bug fixes, enhancements and addons isn't worth charging for? 5 years in the case of nt 5.0 to 5.1? Just because they've only bumped it .1 doesn't mean the changes aren't worth a new version.

Re:Makes sense (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375227)

One could make the case that Microsoft uses their odd naming scheme (such as "Vista" for "NT 5.3") mostly to disguise the fact that they're charging more and more money for less and less meaningful version updates.

Vista is most certainly NT 6.0. The changes *easily* justify a major version bump.

One reason is disk space (1)

kelk1 (660671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374699)

I can't install SP2 on my laptop for lack of disk space. SP2 is huge. Why don't they provide an iso of an updated OS that could be installed directly?

Re:One reason is disk space (3, Informative)

ChronoReverse (858838) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374749)

You can slipstream service packs into the Windows CD.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp [winsupersite.com] shows you how.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

kelk1 (660671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374889)

That is interesting, thank you, but there is no way I can do that if I do not have enough space to download and extract SP2. I have access to other machines, but I still think this is rather cumbersome.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

dynamo52 (890601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375071)

Hard drives are not expensive. You can even spend an extra ten dollars on an enclosure and turn your old one into a pocket sized, usb powered external drive.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374755)

You could make your own...its called slip streaming

http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/we b/6/

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374759)

Does your laptop have a DVD drive?

That's what you'd need if you add all the service packs to the original XP CD.

Of course they could take out Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express etc... then you'd have the EU version!

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374767)

You can slipstream SP2 without burning it to a dvd drive...I've done it many a time.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374795)

True, I can. Most people can't though. Most people wouldn't know where to start, they want a disc (CD or DVD) that installs windows for them.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

dynamo52 (890601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375139)

He means that you can slipstream [theeldergeek.com] SP2 onto a CD with a CD burner. A DVD burner isn't necessary

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375205)

The question was, why don't Microsoft do this? Why do I have to do it, or pay someone else to do it.

Why do I have to install SP2 and then still have to go to windows update? Let me have a new official disc with all the updates included that will be installed instead of the old files. I know this will be out of date next update Tuesday but it's a start. Especially considering the people who have pre-SP2 installation CD's.

Re:One reason is disk space (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374807)

I believe for current installations of Windows SP1, they only had provided a Windows XP SP2 Update CD. I agree with you that it is huge and takes a lot of disk space and time to install. But all the "new" OEM and retail Windows XP CDs now contains the SP2 already.

You could basically just make one. It is called slipstreaming and don't ask me why it is called like that :).

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2 _slipstream.asp [winsupersite.com]

It is basically putting all the updates of SP2 and joining it with your Windows XP Installer. Afterwards, viola! You have a Windows XP SP2 Installer (Burn into a new cd). It won't take that much space when you do a clean install compared to doing an SP2 update of an exisiting XP installation.

just my 2 centavos

Thats nice and all.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374777)

.. But they haven't explained to me yet why I can't install SP2 on my partner's (fully legit) machine. SP1 installs fine, but the second SP2 is installed, the damn thing locks up and requires a full nuke and pave to recover.

I've tried everything I can think of too, install by windows update, install by deployment package, install by CD direct from MS, install by legit MS install CD with SP2 slipstreamed. Ohh well, its not like I use automatic updates anyway.

Dialup (4, Insightful)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374781)

'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'


They forget of course that not everyone in the world has broadband access. Those on dial-up cannot update to SP2 easily. Here, regional WA, has patchy broadband at the best of times, let alone those who use the internet "just for emails" and don't want to spend a lot to do it.

Re:Dialup (5, Funny)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374799)

I set my grandparent's computer to autoupdate...they got SP2 after about 4 months of less than an hour a day average online time iirc.

Re:Dialup (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374851)

I set my grandparent's computer to autoupdate...they got SP2 after about 4 months of less than an hour a day average online time iirc.
haha that's priceless!

Re:Dialup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16375093)

haha that's priceless!


More like timeless.

Re:Dialup (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374987)

Ok, I'm assuming you're joking, but for those who do _not_ know that you can bypass the Windows update site and simply download and burn to CD so your friends don't have to suffer, go HERE:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displa ylang=en [microsoft.com]

Actually, if your friends are running Windows, they _are_ suffering.

--
BMO

Re:Dialup (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375113)

That will get you a copy of the SP2 update package, but what about the two years of updates that have occurred since then? That's still a hell of a large download for a dial-up user.
It's about time Microsoft released a fresh update package i.e. Windows XP SP3 (or is that Vista?)

Re:Dialup (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374929)

I was under the impression they would send you a free SP2 cd if you requested it

Re:Dialup (1)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375013)

Dude, haven't you learnt? Never let facts get in the way of a good anti-MS rant.

Re:Dialup (1)

mackyrae (999347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375109)

It's not a fact, because it's not free. They charge a few bucks for making the cd/shipping.

Re:Dialup (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374941)

Even worse; The ISP my brother has, uses a software/hardware combination that they acknowledge won't work with SP2. They refuse to upgrade either, so he's stuck with SP1. The thing is; it's a pretty big ADSL supplier in Holland and he's not the only one in this situation. I can only assume there are many similar situations in which people really are forced to stick with SP1.

Re:Dialup (-1, Redundant)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375015)

Actually if you really want to you can order SP2 cd's from Microsoft for free from their site - assuming you have a legal version of XP.

Re:Dialup (0)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375069)

Even worse; The ISP my brother has, uses a software/hardware combination that they acknowledge won't work with SP2. They refuse to upgrade either, so he's stuck with SP1. The thing is; it's a pretty big ADSL supplier in Holland and he's not the only one in this situation. I can only assume there are many similar situations in which people really are forced to stick with SP1.

Well you know, I also have ADSL Internet and oddly the only thing I need is having Ethernet port.

Noone denied that there's a possibility for ISP's to do ridiculous things, but that's hardly a reason to say "see, we need to stay with SP1". If a sufficient number of customers call to their ISP, or give up on their services, watch them quickly support SP2 in a matter of weeks.

Re:Dialup (1)

jbrader (697703) | more than 7 years ago | (#16374961)

Regional WA? Do you mean Washington State?

Re:Dialup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16375021)

Western Australia [wikipedia.org] .

The world is not the USA ...

Re:Dialup (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375189)

Regional WA? Do you mean Washington State?


No, I mean WA, West Australia. Regional is anywhere that's not Perth.

Raw Sockets (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16374953)

One good reason to NOT apply SP2 is that it deliberately cripples raw sockets that were introduced in W2K.
As far as Microsoft were concerned they were addressing a legitimate security issue.
Having developed an application that actually required being able to program raw sockets on Windows, I was
totally pissed by this. Just goes to show the mentality at Redmond to actual security: prick your index
finger of your left hand on a thorn, and amputate your right hand.

Little Reason? (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375027)

There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'"
How's about the fact that you paid upwards of $200 dollars for your copy, along with that the implicit support from Microsoft. How's that for a good reason?

Re:Little Reason? (4, Insightful)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375103)

Do you really expect to be supported running software with known problems? It's only been out since the beginning of Feb 2003, so it's not too much to ask, surely?

Re:Little Reason? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16375203)

and they provided that support through service packs and hotfixes, if your using sp1 you have chosen not to take them up on there support obligations and hence your on your own baby.

WHEW security, so amazing (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375115)

does anyone remember ms blaster, like 2 days after sp2, or am i reading the story wrong?

SP2 broke my XP box (2, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375117)

Maybe it's a forced upgrade plan, but SP2 completely broke Windows Update on my computer. It just cycles through the looping progress bar or the tray icon sits at 33% perpetually. It's a totally legitimate copy of XP, dotted with other minor annoyances that worked perfectly under SP1.

That computer now has Vista on it, so I guess Microsoft won after all.

Raw sockets (3, Informative)

DextroShadow (957200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16375231)

XP SP2 crippled itself in the name of "Security", by removing access to raw sockets. They caved into Steven Gibson's ranting and raving about how raw socket support was going to kill the internet... too bad there's still 3rd party packet drivers that reenable the functionality.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...