Jump to content

Pre sp2 from MS Setp 24th


Tbone2

Recommended Posts

Look MS has come up with now.

"Microsoft is hurrying to produce a post Service Pack 1 security rollup package for Windows XP, reversing its August decision to rely solely on Windows Update to deliver individual patches. Since it came to light that Windows XP SP2 was delayed until at least mid-2004, pressure has mounted for Redmond to tend to customers without high bandwidth connections. The incorporates 22 previously released updates and is due to be released to manufacturing on September 24."

This is from Betanews

Tbone2

Link to comment
Share on other sites


We will have to wait for the release notes for any information on whether this will be slipstream'able or not.

The Windows 2000 SP2 Security Rollup Package has the update.exe file (which is used for slipstreaming), so its possible that the same will apply for XP SP1's Security Rollup Package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the list of the 22 package names:

Q323255_XP_SP1_5478

Q328310 Security Update Windows XP

Q329048_XP_5453

Q329115_XP

329170 Security Update Windows XP

Q329390_WXP_SP2

Q329441_WXP_SP2_5838

Q329834_XP_5780

331953_WXP_5919

Q810565_XP_SP2

810577_XPSP2_5935

810833_XP_5937

811493_XP_5951_rec

811630: Critical Update (Windows XP)

Q814033_XP_SP2_5989

Q815021_XPSP2_winse_44054

Q817287_XP_SP2

817606_XPSP2_winse_43844_critical

821557_WXP_SP2_winse_46728

823559_WXP_winse_48629

823980_XPSP2_winse_48714_critical

824146_XPSP2_WinSE_49652

it seems M$ does not make much efforts in releasing this package... :)

just take

823980_XPSP2_winse_48714_critical

824146_XPSP2_WinSE_49652

the patch 824146 replaces the patch 823980, since it contains the same files, but with a higher version-number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The release will be the 24th to RTW and TRM to OEM Distributors. There will be a slipstreamed ISO for OEMs, there will be no slipstream for the RTW package

But the RTW will support slip through webmedics method as I have already tried it within that framework last evening

One catch

this addresses only the "laziness" updates and does not address known hotfix flaws in the OS operation itself. So do not expect any performance related improvements or differences

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a quite a hard and daring look on things.

lets take the blaster problem as an example -

it didnt get me because i update when ms tells me to. I took great plesure in laughing at my friends who turned off autoupdates crying about ms and there invasion of privacy.

But to use a vehicle as an analgy like you did -

If ford sold a car with an airbag that worked perfectly 99.9% of the time (just like the dcom code does) but failed to deploy if an oncoming car hit it at 37.6% going at 38.5 MPH (ie the malformed malicious code) would they recall it and fix it for free.

Appoligies for names and spelling but you get the jist of what i am saying.

Should i also have to buy an extra seat harness incase the one built into my car fails or should i trust the one my cars manufacturer supplied?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a reasonable person, Spheris, it makes sense to charge for not using a firewall. It's really not MS' problem when people don't fix it. The outcry from the masses, however, would be deafening. :)

I think they could save money thusly: They could make security patches available from other outlets like download.com and save MS the bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...