Code Comments
Programming Forum and web based access to our favorite programming groups.
SP2 from MSDN?I see Windows XP SP2 listed on the MSDN downloads site. Is this the official release? I d/l it, installed it. I thought it was supposed to be build 2180, but when I do a Winver I get the following: Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158: Service Pack 2 which sounds like build 2158. However, if I look at the AUTORUN.DLL file on the CD I burned I see 5.1.2600.2180 as the version of that file. So is this the correct official release?
Post Follow-up to this message
Re: SP2 from MSDN?That's the official RTM version (2180) "Nospam" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf1q4s01see@news1.newsguy.com... >I see Windows XP SP2 listed on the MSDN downloads site. Is this the >official release? > > I d/l it, installed it. I thought it was supposed to be build 2180, but > when I do a Winver I get the following: > > Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158: Service Pack 2 which sounds like > build 2158. > > However, if I look at the AUTORUN.DLL file on the CD I burned I see > 5.1.2600.2180 as the version of that file. > > So is this the correct official release? >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?"Nospam" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf1q4s01see@news1.newsguy.com... > I see Windows XP SP2 listed on the MSDN downloads site. Is this the > official release? Yes > > I d/l it, installed it. I thought it was supposed to be build 2180, but > when I do a Winver I get the following: > > Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158: Service Pack 2 which sounds like build > 2158. that shows it's the sp2 rtm (ppl in the wild don't care about build numbers..) > > However, if I look at the AUTORUN.DLL file on the CD I burned I see > 5.1.2600.2180 as the version of that file. > > So is this the correct official release? again, yes. > >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?"Ronald" <new@reply.only> wrote: >build > >that shows it's the sp2 rtm (ppl in the wild don't care about build >numbers..) People in the wild who don't care about build numbers will end up downloading from some unknown site and getting 2179 or 2162 or earlier just repackaged as XPSP2.exe or something stupid like that. Build numbers are absolutely critical. Be sure you have 2180 and that you get it from a MS-sanctioned DL site or order the CD from MS. Sincerely, Brian S. Bergin Terabyte Computers, Inc.
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?Nothing can be made complete monkey proof, can it? When ppl start downloading stuff randomly from random site and install it, there is little that can help. Not even a official RTM of SP2. If will make any mistake they can in future (like disabling firewall -- some guy told me it speeds up my Download speed, my ping time, my upload speed/// same for AV programs.... etc etc). Ppl that *want* to know if the realle have the official RTM should dl it via windows update only. But yeah, patience 1.0 hasn't RTM'ed yet............. It's like thinking a tiger i just a big friendly cat... ;-) Have a nice day! "Brian S. Bergin" <net.terabyte@mspublicnntp.reverse> wrote in message news:sp7ah015mehmuciu1ron4he5j13o4o67sh@ 4ax.com... > "Ronald" <new@reply.only> wrote: > but > > People in the wild who don't care about build numbers will end up > downloading from some unknown site and getting 2179 or 2162 or earlier > just repackaged as XPSP2.exe or something stupid like that. Build > numbers are absolutely critical. Be sure you have 2180 and that you > get it from a MS-sanctioned DL site or order the CD from MS. > > Sincerely, > Brian S. Bergin > Terabyte Computers, Inc.
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?Guys, the question was about the MSDN SUBSCRIBER site. Not a random site. You should read more carefully. Subject line, eh? "Ronald" <new@reply.only> wrote in message news:cf3ahf$iop$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... > Nothing can be made complete monkey proof, can it? > > When ppl start downloading stuff randomly from random site and install it, > there is little that can help. Not even a official RTM of SP2. If will > make > any mistake they can in future (like disabling firewall -- some guy told > me > it speeds up my Download speed, my ping time, my upload speed/// same for > AV > programs.... etc etc). > > Ppl that *want* to know if the realle have the official RTM should dl it > via > windows update only. But yeah, patience 1.0 hasn't RTM'ed yet............. > > > It's like thinking a tiger i just a big friendly cat... ;-) > > Have a nice day! > > > > > > "Brian S. Bergin" <net.terabyte@mspublicnntp.reverse> wrote in message > news:sp7ah015mehmuciu1ron4he5j13o4o67sh@ 4ax.com... > but > >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?Plz read the thread again, and notice the topic was changed a bit later on. You should read more carefully indeed..... Have a nice day! "Nospam" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf3egp07er@news2.newsguy.com... > Guys, the question was about the MSDN SUBSCRIBER site. Not a random site. > You should read more carefully. Subject line, eh? > > "Ronald" <new@reply.only> wrote in message > news:cf3ahf$iop$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... it, told for yet............. like > >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?Yeah, it appears that they messed up on the version string. The only way to tell that you have the final version is if it says xpsp_sp2_rtm. Notice the date is incorrect as well, since the final build date was 2004-08-04 not 2004-08-03. It seems they were under the gun to get the final version out and this just slipped between the cracks. How unforunate, since it is very confusing. The correct version string should have been: Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040804-2180: Service Pack 2 "Nospam" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf1q4s01see@news1.newsguy.com... >I see Windows XP SP2 listed on the MSDN downloads site. Is this the >official release? > > I d/l it, installed it. I thought it was supposed to be build 2180, but > when I do a Winver I get the following: > > Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158: Service Pack 2 which sounds like > build 2158. > > However, if I look at the AUTORUN.DLL file on the CD I burned I see > 5.1.2600.2180 as the version of that file. > > So is this the correct official release? >
Post Follow-up to this message Re: SP2 from MSDN?2158 refers to time not Build so it is correct.. That is why 2158 follows the date, you not only get the date but the time. 2158 = 9:58 PM (most likely Pacific time) -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Michael J. Carter" <michael@volcanictech.com> wrote in message news:e5XQO1vfEHA.4092@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Yeah, it appears that they messed up on the version string. > > The only way to tell that you have the final version is if it says > xpsp_sp2_rtm. Notice the date is incorrect as well, since the final > build date was 2004-08-04 not 2004-08-03. It seems they were under > the gun to get the final version out and this just slipped between > the cracks. How unforunate, since it is very confusing. > > The correct version string should have been: > > Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.040804-2180: Service Pack 2 > > > "Nospam" <nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:cf1q4s01see@news1.newsguy.com... > >
Post Follow-up to this message
Sponsored Links
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2006 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
