I didn't say anything about SP2 breaking E2K; however, I can say that E2K
doesn't work as advertised in some areas unless both SP1 for E2K and SP2 for
Win2K are implemented. I *have* seen problems with production
implementations that were not spacked (service packed). I would also
recommend that SP2 for Win2K be applied before SP1 for E2K, if possible; I
believe that this is Microsoft's recommendation and I've also seen glitches
with the ADC when the service packs were not applied in this order.

Laura
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lynch, MCSE CCNAv2" <lynch00msn.com>
To: "'Laura A. Robinson'" <larobinsbellatlantic.net>; "'Focus on Microsoft
Mailing List'" <FOCUS-MSSECURITYFOCUS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: SP2 Stability Question...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I completely disagree with the rumors of SP2 for Windows 2000
> breaking Exchange 2000. I have installed on numerous test beds of
> Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server; installed Exchange 2000 then
> SP2 for Windows 2000. No problems. I then installed SP1 for
> Exchange, and still no problems. I then reversed the order.
> Installed Windows 2000, the SP2, then Exchange, then SP1 for
> Exchange. No issues.
>
> However, if you do plan to install SP2, make sure that you have the
> latest build of Veritas or ARCserveIT, or whatever backup program you
> use. SP2 made a change on how System State is backed up. All backup
> software vendors have fixed this, but never-the-less, you need to
> know about this.
>
> Also, if you are running Active Directory, install SP2 on your DC's.
> There are a few security and OS level patches that are included with
> SP2 that you really need. Specifically, SYSVOL, FRS, and a few
> others that escape me at the moment.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Chris Lynch, MCSE CCNA
> Network Engineer
> NRT, Inc.
> Chris.lynchnrtinc.com
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura A. Robinson [mailto:larobinsbellatlantic.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:36 PM
> To: Focus on Microsoft Mailing List
> Subject: Re: SP2 Stability Question...
>
>
> We've had both Windows 2000 and Exchange 2000 rolled out for some
> time (workstations since product release, some pre-release; servers
> since shortly after release). Exchange 2000 stinks before SP1 for
> E2K. As long as you've got SP2 for Win2K and SP1 for E2K, you should
> be fine.
>
> Laura
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Beachy, April" <Beachyco.tuscarawas.oh.us>
> To: <focus-mssecurityfocus.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 1:02 PM
> Subject: RE: SP2 Stability Question...
>
>
> > We've rolled it out on our Win2K production servers and our
> > workstations. No problems reported as of yet. FYI we aren't
> > running Exchange 2K or
> Proxy
> > 2K.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NT Security [mailto:ntsecurityknightworld.net]
> > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:55 PM
> > To: focus-mssecurityfocus.com
> > Subject: SP2 Stability Question...
> >
> >
> > My company is hesitant to allow the Win2k SP2 rollout on our
> > production servers. I am wondering if any of you can give me
> > reasons for or agains this rollout. I have read the standard
> > Microsoft papers on this, but I want some real world feedback. I
> > have heard that the original SP2 was responsible for breaking
> > Exchange 2k and Proxy 2 systems, both services which we run. Any
> > feedback appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mark Knight
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBO4KBlAsvmhohONWyEQKa3gCgh5h669nT2oS2Oi/LDwr+EzIRgFoAoKAF
> rHmco/OZcmHXf6kibp97syVv
> =b5EQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]