http://www.osnews.com/story/17484/Microsoft_Releases_Windows_Server_2003_Service_Pack_2 Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Fri, 24 May 2013 12:38:35 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?221088 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221088 64bit version doesn't seem to be up yet. Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (oomingmak) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221131 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221131 Another flucking update I'll eventually have to apply to my production servers and `hope` it doesn't trash them. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aGNUstic) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221150 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221150 You could test it.... Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221160 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221160 Testing is always a good idea. In an ideal universe, you have one server standing by, identically configured to one of your production servers, and you apply the service pack on that, then push out the updates to your other systems a couple days later, assuming it didn't bork anything.

If you're fortunate enough to have a VM cluster, this is fairly easy. If you're not, having the extra hardware lying around for the sole purpose of being a guinea pig is difficult to manage-- Note that the hardware ought to be as similar as possible to the production server, or you're going to find out which device drivers aren't working.

Short version: It's rarely an ideal universe. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grat) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221163 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221163 I was under the strong impression that most Server Hardware uses very standard devices that would come with drivers on the Windows install media or Windows Update. I definitely wouldn't use non-WHQL drivers on a server. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (PlatformAgnostic) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221164 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221164 Not to mention that you should have been testing the pre-release versions (betas and RC's), all of which were available to anyone willing to spend the bandwidth downloading them.

From our own internal testing, we're seeing SQL Server 2005 performance increases of almost 20% in some cases, which is the main selling point for development environments. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jayson.knight) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221173 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221173 What would you have them do? Would you prefer no patch at all? We'd then see a comment complaining that Microsoft haven't fixed problems.

Take a look at any operating system over the past ten years and patches and updates are present.

Get a grip. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221201 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221201 via RIS with this SP2 update ? or am I reading too much into the article

:Perhaps most importantly, enterprises won't have to wait until Longhorn to be able to utilize Windows Deployment Services, the company's new image-based system for pre-composed, remote Windows installations.: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anyweb) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221211 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221211 So what is 2003 R2 then - is that 2003+SP1 or something?

Will this SP2 work on top of R2? Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (simo) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221217 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221217 It's up. Check here for all of the updates:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/sp2.mspx Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221221 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221221 R2 is a seperate release that includes additional features like the Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications, Common Log File System, and AD Federation Services.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/f9d70026-ae8...

SP2 does work on R2. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221233 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221233 After installing on XP Professional x64 Edition :

- One of my NTFS partitions needed the drive letter reset in Disk Management.
- WMP 11 disappeared from Windows Update but only WMP 10 is installed.
- Slipstream into x64 installation media failed. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (baadger) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221234 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221234 It's not just about hardware, This SP adds/changes signifigant functionality, and I would want to make sure my apps don't break Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221241 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221241 Well... it's for server 2003, not XP Pro. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (CPUGuy) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221248 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221248 It's for XP Pro **x64 Edition** too. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (baadger) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221251 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221251 i chose to update the windows 2k3sp1 server via windows update, two updates were listed, sp2 (32bit) and windows malicios software updates.. I chose to install them and 3/4 of the way though the sp2 process I got an error message stating 'you must be an administrator to complete this task, please log off, and log on again as an administrator to ...'

I was logged in as Administrator.

hmm. what next ? Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anyweb) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221252 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221252 Windows XP x64 is based almost entirely off of the Windows 2003 x64 code base. It's also clearly labeled on the MS downloads site that it's for Xp x64 as well. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jayson.knight) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221253 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221253 What would you have `me` do.

Trust me, the servers I manage run the business end of three university campuses.

A patch or an update on `any` is not always the `best` or even `prefered` option. Especially on made by McSoft.

Those patches and updates are not always a `fix`. Some of them do more damage in the process of repairing a vulnerability that should not have been there in the first place.

I do look at all `major` and `viable` operating systems. I would gripping my `pink slip` if I went crazy and patch happy.Edited 2007-03-14 13:20 Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aGNUstic) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221277 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221277 If you are running such important servers, I would thjink you would have a test environment. So test the SP, make sure it doesn't break anything, fix anything it does, and then deploy. Windows SP's are no different than any other OS update by any other vendor or distro Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221283 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221283 Its so much easier to come on OSNews and troll, complain and make up misinformation than it is to go out and test the patch. I am actually testing it myself and so far no problems. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (robertojdohnert) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221294 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221294 I'm already test it in three servers, so if in a month from now all in find, i will deploy the production servers.

I hope all to be fine, i have some issues that i know this service pack will help me. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nehemoth) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221300 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221300 corrupt profile possibly?

I'd create a new administrator profile and try installing the update again.

Common MS issue it seems, profile corruption that is. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bit_Rapist) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221315 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221315 That would be great if it held up. Our system could really use a boost from SQL operating more efficiently. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221316 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221316 Why would a server service pack have the ability to install on a client OS? That's just weird. What can you possibly look to gain from that? Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221323 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221323 i just clieked ok to the error, and the installation proceeded as normal, after the reboot it was SP2, but i did note the following:-

windows live messenger started an MSI as soon as i logged in, which stated that it was 'repairing itself', so I guess the two could have been related.

on another note, now RIS doesnt work at all, however I cannot identify yet if that is because I changed IP address of one of the network cards on the server (the internet facing one, not the RIS service nic) and there a re 1001 DNS errors as a result. I'll play around with the server tonight and see can I fix it.

cheers
anyweb Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anyweb) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221337 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221337 I have to say Server 2003 is better than Vista to bad they could not have removed some of the services out of this one and made it a desktop os... Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Southern.Pride) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221401 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221401 They did. It's called Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MarkVVV) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221438 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221438 if you are running a RIS server and if you are going to upgrade to SP2, then please read this before you do

http://www.windows-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=53

'Could not start Remote Installation Service on local computer.
Error 127: the specified procedure could not be found.'

I've included details of why you get that error and how to get RIS working again in the above link,

cheers
anyweb Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (anyweb) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221440 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221440 You have to reapply the 2007 Daylight Savings Time Patch when you are done with the Service Pack 2 install... Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tzineos) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221614 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221614 Microsoft always has a habit of taking a great operating system and royally rooting it to kingdom come.

Case in point, NT was a rock solid, be it slight slow due to hardware constraints, micro-kernel based operating system, very small, compact rock solid kernel with security built into it from the ground up.

Everything came unstuck when management wanted the graphics more snappy by pushing it into the kernel, wanted compatibility put ahead of implementing things properly.

Fastforward to today, take Windows 2003 SP1 and stuff it up by adding layers of compatibility and features; the new features are great, but quite frankly, the backwards compatibility should have been thrown out - yes, up take would be slow as companies would have to stop using removed API's like GDI/GDI+ for example, but at the same time, the need to have layers of abstraction and compatibility would reduce the bloatage and force good coding practices on third party software vendors.

Back on topic, it'll be interesting to see how Windows 2007 Server will be like compared to Server 2003; from what I understand, the next 9 months or so are being spent doing some major overhauls in Windows, but I am skeptical as to whether they'll put quality above meeting deadlines.

When you take into account a rejuvenated Sun Microsystems with development on Solaris x86 going gang busters, Linux vendors pushing out enterprise server/workstation upgrades or updates (Red Hat Enterprise 5.0 and SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop SP1), Microsoft can't afford to be making the same sorts of mistakes they did in the past as they know that there are viable alternatives, and both regulatory bodies are keeping a close eye of Microsoft. Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221708 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221708 I haven't had any problems either, two days, no issues, might be able to deploy next week, hopefully Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221716 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221716 Seems like MS is trying to give people a taste of Vista-UAC with this shiny SP2. Opening a zip file or copying a text file now become security risks in SP2:
http://ayanami.sytes.net/~dillee1/open_zip.png
http://ayanami.sytes.net/~dillee1/copy_file.png

And old SP1 relics are still here:
http://ayanami.sytes.net/~dillee1/open_chm01.png
http://ayanami.sytes.net/~dillee1/open_chm02.png

Yeah yeah I know these warnings only occurs with network drive, but users of ws2k3 should be admins and know what exactly are they doing. MS really wins with these useless GUI bumps again. Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dillee1) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221740 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221740 XP64 is based on win2k3 code, so it's more 2003 than XP Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221847 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221847 Why are so many posters so adamant to update their production systems to a more or less unproven Service Pack?

A few years ago I learned that updating to a newer Service Pack is more painful than reinstalling from slipstreamed media. So that is what I have been doing ever since.

And nowadays there are many virtualisation options. So you can have Windows 2003 SP1/R2 (production) and Windows 2003 SP2 (testing) running side by side till the latter functions well. Then you phase out the former.

I will be doing exactly this at my clients' sites where they need access to Windows because of Windows-only applications. And this is running in VMware Server (on Linux). Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (psychicist) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?221931 http://www.osnews.com/thread?221931 Every since MS popped out NT SP6a I say wait a couple of months.
Then check forums for reported problems.

Then check any 3rd party software and drivers will actually work with 2003 SP2. You never know...

Then do a full backup, reboot the Server and do a chkdsk. Then add the SP only if that chkdsk turns out ok.

But you'll not know if everything is working for several weeks at least. Servers terribly complex beasts and you can't test all the systems on it... Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (quatermass) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?223906 http://www.osnews.com/thread?223906 That still doesn't explain the desired end result. Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments