Windows XP SP2 RC2 Build 2149
Posted by Arnaudt on 14 June 2004 - 23:06 · 137 comments & 31353 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Arnaudt
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Arnaudt
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by oqwarrior on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:06
- w00t!!! RC2!!!!
-
#2 Posted by JZolloXP on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:09
- It's not on MSDN...what the heck!
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by spidoinkel on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:09
- yay!
-
(10 replies)
#4 Posted by MSUman4 on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:11
- Does anyone know if NAV works with SP2 now? or has Symantec still not released a patch so that Windows can detect NAV's status?
-
#4.1 Posted by NeoSoft on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:13
- I don't officially yet, but I would expect that Microsoft has fixed this problem by now!
-
#4.2 Posted by MSUman4 on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:16
- Is it Microsoft's responsibility to fix this or Symantec's?
-
#4.4 Posted by Ely on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:00
- Symantec products have been working ok with SP2 since build 2126.
-
#4.6 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:07
- That NAV status thing couldn't be more trivial, doesn't affect the functionality of the product, and I'm sure Symantec (and all the other virus/firewall vendors) will do what's necessary to get it updated by the time SP2 hits the streets in the summer.
-
#4.7 Posted by divertom15 on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:48
- haha Im glad AVG antivirus works and reports its status. I wouldnt use that Norton bloat
-
#4.8 Posted by JohnSK on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:37
QUOTE (#4.7) haha Im glad AVG antivirus works and reports its status. I wouldnt use that Norton bloat
Just use NAV Corporate Client - 28 MB and no bloatware..-
#4.9 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:56
- Bloatware. In the age of the 300GB HD and 1GB of RAM. Get real people.
Oh, BTW, my NAV2004 directory is 15MB...and it even checks for viruses coming in via email, which is only where 99% of them are. Your NAV Corp, when used without a server component, which is likely how you're using it, does not. Oops.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by PanicButton on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:14
- Well this is a little sooner than expected.
-
#6 Posted by 98XT on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:16
- Wonderful. Technet should have their public build up tomorrow.
-
(5 replies)
#7 Posted by Black Raven on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:19
- If you install RC2 can you uninstall it when the final comes out or do you have to reformat?
-
#7.2 Posted by PanicButton on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:21
- Yeah, I would format.
-
#7.3 Posted by Black Raven on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:38
- Ok thank you for the prompt responses.
-
#7.4 Posted by clonk on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:57
- Maybe a format is recommended by people here, but you the SP installer is designed to rollback to your previous configuration. You can uninstall it and install the final just fine.
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by PanicButton on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:24
- If this is made public, can we report any bugs back to Microsoft?
-
(11 replies)
#9 Posted by DrunkenMaster on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:31
- I can't feel the hype. I'm just going to install it to prevent viruses and spyware from getting on my computer.
I wish MS would add useability features to their OS with the service packs. Apple gets Expose and a whole bunch of new stuff and stability improvements. Explorer.exe still crashes in XP from memory leaks and such!!!
Annoying. -
#9.2 Posted by JynX78 on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:06
QUOTE (#9.0) I can't feel the hype. I'm just going to install it to prevent viruses and spyware from getting on my computer.
I wish MS would add useability features to their OS with the service packs. Apple gets Expose and a whole bunch of new stuff and stability improvements. Explorer.exe still crashes in XP from memory leaks and such!!! Annoying.
Because Microsoft gets sued when it add functionality to their OS.
-
#9.4 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:11
- Incidentally, while the "point upgrades" from Apple cost money (.1 to .2 to .3 etc), all the ones in between, do not. And they come fairly frequently, with plenty of feature upgrades. It seems effortless for Apple to pump these out as compared to the Herculean effort MS seems to employ (a much larger company) for what's usually only bug fixes (SP2 is a rare exception, since it includes a few new features).
-
#9.5 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:43
- Drunken, re the crash, there are just too many variables for such a thing to be declared absolutely. Due to a rogue program that recently created over 65,000 files in one directory on me, I can confirm that Explorer may take some minutes to open such a directory, but it doesn't crash, at least for me. Also, those random, nagging shell crashes that would make half the tray icons disappear until the next reboot, have gone away for me entirely apparently, and I did used to see those fairly regularly in early versions of XP, mostly before the SP2 beta began late last year.
-
#9.6 Posted by BananaMan on 15 Jun 2004 - 03:13
QUOTE (#9.5) 1. Sure it does. Among other ways, open almost any folder with a few hundred files in it. It takes forever to load and if there's enough in it, it crashes explorer.exe. Its been happening since Win 95 days. And its not because of installed shareware or viruses.
Never had that problem myself. Opening a folder with 14,361 MP3/AAC's here causes no such crash, nor any significant slowdown (it does have a think about it when opening it up, but it's brief).
I have had a problem with explorer.exe crashing intermittently, but I discovered that it was because I set my memory timings too aggressively. Once I relaxed them, problem was gone.-
#9.7 Posted by chickon on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:41
- Im not sure what kind of cheap computer you're using, I wonder why my XP exploer.exe never crash ? there's like 40000 something files in my "All my garbage" folder.
Windows 95 sucks? yeah it does suck compare to what we're using right now, but I bet u never tried Windows 3.1 and 2 ? Compare them.
and I wonder why Apple's OS9 was so fudge up back then. OSX? wow I wonder why It was so fudged up as well, after so many released finally its getting a little bit MORE stable now.(10.1/2 was totally garbage) and lets not forget Apple's stuff are ALWAYS over-priced !
One more thing, 95% of the people (lets say, personal computers) use Windows, that means 95 outa 100 ppl use Windows, You think OSX really all that secure? I dont think so. Why ? because you dont even have enough people to use it in the first place, forget about finding bugs. the userbase just not "large" enough. Oh and Apple cant even come up with its own Kernel (did I use the right word?) it gotta base off Unix. Unix is not bad, but sad for Apple.
Last edited by 59020 on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:48 -
#9.8 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 06:03
- Yes, there's obviously something to the argument that OS X user base keeps it mostly in the clear moreso than its technical merits do, but does that really matter in the wide view? The bottom line is that if you live in that world, you're much, much, much safer, and this insane security hoop-jumping everyone has to do in the Windows world *constantly* is N/A. It hardly matters why.
-
#9.9 Posted by unkn0wnvariable on 15 Jun 2004 - 07:39
- Slow downs when opening folders with lots of files in them, or which are deeply nested are normally only encountered when using a FAT32 formated drive.
I used to experience this problem with 98 and ME but after upgrading to XP and converting to NTFS it's gone. I have tried using FAT32 under XP and the problem still occurs, so it IS caused by the formatting of the drive, and not Explorer. -
#9.10 Posted by jono3000 on 15 Jun 2004 - 07:56
QUOTE (#9.5) half the tray icons disappear until the next reboot,
This is not Microsofts fault - the companys who wrote the programs with the tray icon are to blame for this.-
#9.11 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 15:10
- Apps are to blame for not "refreshing" themselves and not reappearing -- once the shell crash has occurred -- but what's to explain the shell crashes not happening in the first place anymore? That's to the OS's credit. That it used to happen a lot before must be to the OS's detriment, as the tray apps weren't causing the crashes, they just didn't know how to handle them.
-
(8 replies)
#10 Posted by xStainDx on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:34
- OMGHAI2URCTWOOOO
-
#10.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:48
-
? -
#10.2 Posted by CoLdFuSi0n on 14 Jun 2004 - 23:50
- what kind of ****ing crack are you on?
-
#10.3 Posted by ThunderRiver on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:16
- the weedy one I suppose
-
#10.4 Posted by Phil Gates on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:22
- been snorting arctic silver again have we?
-
#10.5 Posted by raid517 on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:24
- I think it's this web acronym nonsense taken to an extreme.
GJ -
#10.6 Posted by Octol on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:49
QUOTE I think it's this web acronym nonsense taken to an extreme.
Don't you mean ITITWANTTAE? -
#10.7 Posted by chriscustom on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:35
QUOTE (#10.4) snorting artic silver ,what kind of high is that ? cool high ?
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by glitch409 on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:34
- im getting it off the beta site(70kb/s, not fantastic )
-
#11.1 Posted by Shagin099 on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:40
- yeah, i'm gettin like 80.... oh well, wont get around to installing it tonight anyway
-
(3 replies)
#12 Posted by soldier1st on 15 Jun 2004 - 00:47
- norton antivirus 2002 runs on xp till this newest build
i have tasted it on the other builds
nav 2002 even runs on longhorn no problem
i don't like nav 2004 or nav 2003 but i do like nav 2002 -
#12.2 Posted by slimy on 16 Jun 2004 - 23:11
- u don't know wut your talking about
nav2004 works
just the status thing in the security center
sheesh
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by JNasty on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:18
- Is concurrent connections enabled for RDP?
-
(3 replies)
#14 Posted by DrunkenMaster on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:30
- 1. Sure it does. Among other ways, open almost any folder with a few hundred files in it. It takes forever to load and if there's enough in it, it crashes explorer.exe. Its been happening since Win 95 days. And its not because of installed shareware or viruses.
2. As mentionned before some Apple updates cost money. Thats' not the issue for debate. I think MS isn't doing much for adding value to its non-commerical users (e.g. I'm sure some people would like Expose type stuff by now), commerical users (better Unix integration and compatability) and its shareholders (the next "buy" is Longhorn which will be available when DNF gets out).
I'm tired of MS taking forever to "fix" and "improve" its products. Win 95 was a piece of crap. So was 98. It took em 5 years to fix it with Win 2k. I like their products - to some extent - I've been using them since Win 95 all the way to XP. Their pace is way too slow and some other OS will trounce it in a few years. -
#14.1 Posted by tcghost on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:39
- DrunkenMaster, you really have no idea what you're talking about... windows 95, 98, and ME line is COMPLETELY different from the NT, 2000, and XP line, so you really can't compare them and say that it took 5 years to improve.
-
#14.2 Posted by Jaded1 on 15 Jun 2004 - 07:50
- Agreed, It's not fair at all to use a win 9x line os as a comparison to the far supperior NT line.
-
#14.3 Posted by FISKER_Q on 15 Jun 2004 - 09:15
- Yeah but if you would go into your command prompt and list the contents of the directory, it wouldn't take any time.
If you would do that with linux, it wouldn't take any time.
But if you do it with a filemanager browser they both can take a long time to load. And they can crash.
I remember nautilus always crashing when i tried to browse to the /dev/ folder. But that's the way it is, if you want other than characters displayed you must know that it will take more resources.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by neocyber_16 on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:31
- Neowin featured in Eweek in relation to the release of SP2-http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1612473,00.asp-
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by ThunderRiver on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:40
- just installed RC2.. works so far so good..
-
(3 replies)
#17 Posted by jameseuk on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:40
- Not impressed with the fact there isnt a express download for this yet(if at all), I only want to install on a single computer not a network(basically because I only have one PC)
-
#17.1 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:46
- That comes Tuesday. Incidentally, as you probably know, that "express" download is still going to clock in at around 100MB, as compared to the 265MB downloadable version. Either version is going to suck big time for anyone on dial-up; for someone on broadband, it's almost a non-issue.
-
#18 Posted by divertom15 on 15 Jun 2004 - 01:58
- http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechn...sp2preview.mspx
that will be were rc2 is tomarrow when ms gives it to the public. right now its only the link to download rc1
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by neo_joel on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:04
- I dont see whats so big about this SP2. I mean sure it adds security to XP but thats really the only benefit i see. I tried installing the SP2 and half of my software didnt work.
-
#19.1 Posted by iobilly on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:24
- what software did u use? i never really had any problems with software compatibility starting from RC1. Maybe your programs are spyware ridden!
-
#20 Posted by denzilla on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:25
- I wish they would improve older program compatibilty. Got some older win95/98 games I would like to run again. I would rather not dual boot.
-
(6 replies)
#21 Posted by manmz on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:27
- i am going to ask THE BIG Q. does this work with a pirated windows copy
, cuz i downloaded it, but i dont feel like formating if it doesnt. THNX -
#21.2 Posted by manmz on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:09
- by the way i tried it and it worked, very nice, much more stable than the beta one.
-
#21.5 Posted by Jaded1 on 15 Jun 2004 - 07:53
- Works like a charm if you aren't using one of the widely known keys that are being blocked.
-
(3 replies)
#22 Posted by mechandler34 on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:32
- I'm sure someone has the uxtheme.dll for this build. Am I right?!
-
#22.2 Posted by mechandler34 on 15 Jun 2004 - 03:19
- Thanks a lot!
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by utomo on 15 Jun 2004 - 02:53
- Do the RC2 already include the Java VM again ?
After releasing to limited tester, Microsoft need to release newer version to public. so it can avoid the bugs as much as it can.
Microsoft better not to change the compatibility more after the RC1, if not many people will confuse if their software is not working correctly anymore. and also developers will feel bad about it.
what is changed in RC1 I think is enough for the software compatibility. -
#23.1 Posted by McGazza on 15 Jun 2004 - 18:28
- NO! Microsoft have stopped adding JVM to there products If you want java go to www.java.com
-
#24 Posted by Robert McClelland on 15 Jun 2004 - 03:51
- Um I got it in my beta place to but where express installer at? I only have deploy cab? or not it? Or I guest going have wait for the cd and it's huge lol Executable, 264.36 MB hey did anyone check there image cds? xpsp2_2149_usa_symbolcd.iso
Download Location: Redmond, United States
Customer Support and Diagnostic CD
CD Image File, 403.96 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86chk_procd1.iso
Download Location: Redmond, United States
Professional Edition CD - Checked Version
CD Image File, 612.2 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_per.iso
Download Location: Redmond, United States
Home Edition CD
CD Image File, 556.28 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_procd1.iso
Download Location: Redmond, United States
Professional Edition CD
CD Image File, 579.02 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_spcd_signed.iso
Download Location: Redmond, United States
Service Pack CD
CD Image File, 472.84 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_symbolcd.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Customer Support and Diagnostic CD
CD Image File, 403.96 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86chk_procd1.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Professional CD - Checked Version
CD Image File, 612.2 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_per.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Home Edition CD
CD Image File, 556.28 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_procd1.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Professional Edition CD
CD Image File, 579.02 MB
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_spcd_signed.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Service Pack CD
CD Image File, 472.84 MB
I wonder about this one does this mean I can download the pro version lol?
xpsp2_2149_usa_x86fre_procd1.iso
Download Location: Otemachi, JPN
Professional Edition CD
CD Image File, 579.02 MB
I don't get what those image cd are for? Does this mean I can used my xp home key on the pro image file? or no? It would take me about two months download that sucker lol
Last edited by 19695 on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:00
-
#25 Posted by Whoa on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:00
- it wont let me download keeps giving me the error "VBScript: File Transfer Manager"
"There was an error launching the File Transfer Manager Pleas try again later or contact your help provider"
-
(4 replies)
#26 Posted by Robert McClelland on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:08
- I think severs are busy right now maybe?
-
#26.1 Posted by Whoa on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:11
- no this happened even when they released 2142
this same thing happened and i couldnt download it so i figure it might be fix at RC2 but now im
still getting it
any ideas? -
#26.2 Posted by Robert McClelland on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:15
- try close your firewall or detele your cookies and close ie and relogin
-
(1 reply)
#27 Posted by Robert McClelland on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:26
- never mind I guss I would have wait for the cd
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by DJ Prem on 15 Jun 2004 - 04:40
- excellent
-
#29 Posted by Dapper on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:19
- Well, looks like its time to kill the 60 days uptime & see what this has in store.
Hopefully this will be the last RC before final as they have been working hard on this
Brgs
-
#30 Posted by Michael Lerner on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:19
- This is awesome, I just downloaded the build and it's really good security wise and the security center detected my free version of AVG.
-
#31 Posted by EvErSoR on 15 Jun 2004 - 05:23
- Aaaarrgh. I just woke and read this incredible message and checked out windowsbeta. But so far only the english build is avaialable. Hopefully they will release ther german buidl later this day...
-
(3 replies)
#32 Posted by xStainDx on 15 Jun 2004 - 06:00
- Uninstalling Build 2142 to install this version has b0rk3d my system.
Reinstalling Windows.... -
#32.1 Posted by rseiler on 15 Jun 2004 - 06:05
- Did you wait long enough? There can be delays up to 30 minutes when uninstalling that build.
-
#33 Posted by defcon7 on 15 Jun 2004 - 06:03
- Well, not only did it mess up my system, but after finally getting it to install properly, I couldn't connect to the net at all. Yay. Time to uninstall... Damn, it was looking nice.
-
(1 reply)
#34 Posted by zeebaf on 15 Jun 2004 - 06:45
- DivX,gif animator works on RC2 now
Well it seems Microsoft have finally made the final jump and have released this long awaited update of Windows XP Service Pack 2. The official build for RC2 is at 5.1.2600.2149 (xpsp_sp2_rc2.040610-1520). The update is available for official testers to download from WindowsBeta, and might soon become available as a public preview for all to download. We hope to see many bug fixes in this build, especially since Microsoft took a lot of care with rolling out this next Release Candidate. More screenshots to follow!
This sort of thing is not uncommon among Internet and computer users. Microsoft vs Apple, Intel vs AMD. It seems us geeks just can’t help ourselves.
We must remember that both offer “free” services and unbelievable amounts of storage. So what’s at the centre of this storm and why would users of a email service turn to this action? I would hazard a guess “commercialisation”. GMail members are selling & trading invites to what is a free service.
This spawned a new craze, were everyone wants the best email address they can buy, usually their first name, popular companies and even pop stars names. True hysteria built on hype has caused email accounts to become valuable and any rival offering a better service and this is a threat to them.
So when your saving for your pension don’t forget to add a few choice GMail accounts to go along with those 1000’s of catchy domain names your sitting on too…
Update: well it seems that the GMail group won, You’ve Got Post accounts now have a 20mb limit, returning them to the hords of companies offering a similer service. GMail it seams, has kept its crown for now...