OT: Where is XP SP2?

[goblin]

I see mentions of it all over but it doesn't really exist yet, does it?
Is it also meant to update XP86_64? I've read posts that seemed to imply
that but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Cuzman]

" I see mentions of it all over but it doesn't really exist yet, does it?
"


http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/sp2preview.mspx

 

[goblin]

" I see mentions of it all over but it doesn't really exist yet, does
it? "


http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/sp2preview.mspx

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Vince Coen]

Hello goblin!

19 Apr 04 21:19, goblin wrote to All:

g> I see mentions of it all over but it doesn't really exist yet, does
g> it?

On M$ website as a beta release, or wait until next month.


g> Is it also meant to update XP86_64? I've read posts that seemed to
g> imply that but somehow I doubt it.

Not seen any indications of that.

Vince

 

[John Dallman [311000]]

I see mentions of it all over but it doesn't really exist yet, does it?

In beta.

Is it also meant to update XP86_64? I've read posts that seemed to imply
that but somehow I doubt it.

No, but there are two issues that might make you think so:

Firstly, there's also a beta going on for "Windows Server 2003 sp1", which
has an X64 version. The beta programme also includes "XP Professional
2003 64-bit edition sp1" (for Itanium) and "XP Pro 2003 for x64 sp1", which
is the version for AMD64 (and IA-32e).

Second, 32-bit Windows XP with sp2 will take advantage of AMD64
hardware in one important way: it uses the "NX" bit in the PAE tables,
to implemten "Data Execution Protection" - attempts to run code out of
data memory are trapped. This is intended to prevent buffer overflow
attacks across the network; it should certainly prevent simple-minded
ones getting control of the machine, although they can still do denial-of-
service attacks.

John

 

[Jeffrey Schwartz]

In beta.

Actually it's in RC1, maybe that's beta on steroids, not sure.

No, but there are two issues that might make you think so:

Firstly, there's also a beta going on for "Windows Server 2003 sp1", which
has an X64 version. The beta programme also includes "XP Professional
2003 64-bit edition sp1" (for Itanium) and "XP Pro 2003 for x64 sp1", which
is the version for AMD64 (and IA-32e).

Second, 32-bit Windows XP with sp2 will take advantage of AMD64
hardware in one important way: it uses the "NX" bit in the PAE tables,
to implemten "Data Execution Protection" - attempts to run code out of
data memory are trapped. This is intended to prevent buffer overflow
attacks across the network; it should certainly prevent simple-minded
ones getting control of the machine, although they can still do denial-of-
service attacks.

John

Now reading on PC Week it's been pushed back to July. Didn't see a
year mentioned for what's its worth.

Jeff

 

[Jason Cothran]

Now reading on PC Week it's been pushed back to July. Didn't see a
year mentioned for what's its worth.

Jeff

July sounds much more feasible, as I just recently read where RC2 is to be
deployed in May.

 

[Ben Pope]

Actually it's in RC1, maybe that's beta on steroids, not sure.

Maybe RC is gamma?

As far as I can tell, beta is definately test software, but it might be very
good (it might not). Release Candidates should have no known issues... but
have not been tested thoroughly enough to be considered production.

Ben

 

[Andy Yee]

Nah, I think it's next to his winning lottery ticket

Maybe RC is gamma?

As far as I can tell, beta is definately test software, but it might be
very good (it might not). Release Candidates should have no known
issues... but have not been tested thoroughly enough to be considered
production.

Ben

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Yee E-Mail: ayee AT mn dot rr dot com
President Home Page: http://home.mn.rr.com/andyyee
New Directions Engineering, Inc.

Godwin's Law: As a USENET thread grows, the probability of a reference
to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.00.
Corollary: When such a reference is made, it is generally
recognized that the poster has LOST the argument.