WS2003 SP1 RC1 0x800B0003

Hi,

today I have been redirected to http://ws03sp1.update.microsoft.com/...
domain, and get 0x800B0003 error number. HTTP 1.1 enabled, softpub, initpki,
mssip32 registered, host file is clean. Using WinSrv2003 SP1 RC1.

Thanks.

Martin

Same behavior here, with same OS/SP1 RC.

Looks like a bug.
The error number is not listed in the troubleshooter, either.




Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
=====================

"Martin" <> wrote in message
news:54E1B0CA-A89B-4F7E-BBB8-...
> Hi,
>
> today I have been redirected to http://ws03sp1.update.microsoft.com/...
> domain, and get 0x800B0003 error number. HTTP 1.1 enabled, softpub,
> initpki,
> mssip32 registered, host file is clean. Using WinSrv2003 SP1 RC1.
>
> Thanks.
> Martin

Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today I have been redirected to
> http://ws03sp1.update.microsoft.com/... domain, and get 0x800B0003
> error number. HTTP 1.1 enabled, softpub, initpki, mssip32 registered,
> host file is clean. Using WinSrv2003 SP1 RC1.

Hi, Martin and Juan;

Considering that both the Service Pack and the WU website mentioned are
still very much in Beta, probably not much we can do to help you from this
newsgroup. <g>

BTW, for those reading this that are not using the public Beta of Server2003
SP1, I highly recommend that you NOT go to the webite Martin cited. Ideally
your system would re-direct you to the correct Windows Update site (or just
give an error) but I'm guessing that it is possible that some of the Windows
Update controls/support-files on your system could be modified. And then
that could produce all kinds of unexpected and unpredictable errors when you
want to use Windows Update "live" to get that new bunch of Criticals that
came out today.


--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

Well Rc's really are a level above beta's and should be supported for
criticals. This is a huge bug with a large install base of RC1's doing roll
out testing.

"Sky King" wrote:

> Martin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > today I have been redirected to
> > http://ws03sp1.update.microsoft.com/... domain, and get 0x800B0003
> > error number. HTTP 1.1 enabled, softpub, initpki, mssip32 registered,
> > host file is clean. Using WinSrv2003 SP1 RC1.
>
> Hi, Martin and Juan;
>
> Considering that both the Service Pack and the WU website mentioned are
> still very much in Beta, probably not much we can do to help you from this
> newsgroup. <g>
>
> BTW, for those reading this that are not using the public Beta of Server2003
> SP1, I highly recommend that you NOT go to the webite Martin cited. Ideally
> your system would re-direct you to the correct Windows Update site (or just
> give an error) but I'm guessing that it is possible that some of the Windows
> Update controls/support-files on your system could be modified. And then
> that could produce all kinds of unexpected and unpredictable errors when you
> want to use Windows Update "live" to get that new bunch of Criticals that
> came out today.
>
>
> --
>
> ....Sky
>
> Tom "Sky" King
> =============
>
>

Poomba1 wrote:
> Well Rc's really are a level above beta's

And way, way short of being RTM quality.

> and should be supported

Nope, not supported at all. Check the words every user had to accept before
that Beta would install.

> This is a huge bug

Again, no. Not a bug at all ---->>> for THIS newsgroup. Feel free to
report it as such in whatever non-public newsgroup(s) are associated with
that Beta.

--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

I don't have to be on the dark side to
complain of being blind-sided by this bug.

Users shouldn't be penalized just because they
accepted Microsoft's offer to install a release candidate.

If RC1 was buggy, and that reflects on not being
able to update Windows, RC1 should never have
been publicly distributed.

There should be enough pre-release testing for *RC* level
releases, so that *major* bugs, like this one, don't penalize users.

After all, we're dealing with Windows *Server*,
and not with a *consumer* product, although the
same care should be taken with consumer products.

To dump Server OS users
into *update limbo* is not good.



Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
=====================

"Sky King" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Poomba1 wrote:
>> Well Rc's really are a level above beta's
>
> And way, way short of being RTM quality.
>
>> and should be supported
>
> Nope, not supported at all. Check the words every user had to accept
> before that Beta would install.
>
>> This is a huge bug
>
> Again, no. Not a bug at all ---->>> for THIS newsgroup. Feel free to
> report it as such in whatever non-public newsgroup(s) are associated with
> that Beta.
>
> --
>
> ...Sky
>
> Tom "Sky" King
> =============
>
>

Well they've released RC2, which I'm betting deals with this, considering
they released it today along with the security bulletins....


"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:

> I don't have to be on the dark side to
> complain of being blind-sided by this bug.
>
> Users shouldn't be penalized just because they
> accepted Microsoft's offer to install a release candidate.
>
> If RC1 was buggy, and that reflects on not being
> able to update Windows, RC1 should never have
> been publicly distributed.
>
> There should be enough pre-release testing for *RC* level
> releases, so that *major* bugs, like this one, don't penalize users.
>
> After all, we're dealing with Windows *Server*,
> and not with a *consumer* product, although the
> same care should be taken with consumer products.
>
> To dump Server OS users
> into *update limbo* is not good.
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
> =====================
>
> "Sky King" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Poomba1 wrote:
> >> Well Rc's really are a level above beta's
> >
> > And way, way short of being RTM quality.
> >
> >> and should be supported
> >
> > Nope, not supported at all. Check the words every user had to accept
> > before that Beta would install.
> >
> >> This is a huge bug
> >
> > Again, no. Not a bug at all ---->>> for THIS newsgroup. Feel free to
> > report it as such in whatever non-public newsgroup(s) are associated with
> > that Beta.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ...Sky
> >
> > Tom "Sky" King
> > =============
> >
> >
>
>
>

Thanks, Poomba1.

Would you have an URL for RC2 ?



Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
=====================

"Poomba1" <> wrote in message
news:A4F6D35C-72B6-459E-BE3D-...
> Well they've released RC2, which I'm betting deals with this, considering
> they released it today along with the security bulletins....

> "Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
>
>> I don't have to be on the dark side to
>> complain of being blind-sided by this bug.
>>
>> Users shouldn't be penalized just because they
>> accepted Microsoft's offer to install a release candidate.
>>
>> If RC1 was buggy, and that reflects on not being
>> able to update Windows, RC1 should never have
>> been publicly distributed.
>>
>> There should be enough pre-release testing for *RC* level
>> releases, so that *major* bugs, like this one, don't penalize users.
>>
>> After all, we're dealing with Windows *Server*,
>> and not with a *consumer* product, although the
>> same care should be taken with consumer products.
>>
>> To dump Server OS users
>> into *update limbo* is not good.
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>> =====================
>>
>> "Sky King" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>> > Poomba1 wrote:
>> >> Well Rc's really are a level above beta's
>> >
>> > And way, way short of being RTM quality.
>> >
>> >> and should be supported
>> >
>> > Nope, not supported at all. Check the words every user had to accept
>> > before that Beta would install.
>> >
>> >> This is a huge bug
>> >
>> > Again, no. Not a bug at all ---->>> for THIS newsgroup. Feel free
>> > to
>> > report it as such in whatever non-public newsgroup(s) are associated
>> > with
>> > that Beta.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > ...Sky
>> >
>> > Tom "Sky" King
>> > =============

Hi;

Juan T. Llibre wrote:

> Users shouldn't be penalized just because they
> accepted Microsoft's offer to install a release candidate.

And users should be willing to read the caveats MS posts in many, many spots
about the risks of using pre-release software.

>
> If RC1 was buggy, and that reflects on not being
> able to update Windows, RC1 should never have
> been publicly distributed.

Oh, come on Juan. We have all tested Beta software enough to know the risks
when going in. And no one who has ever tested any software expects RC1 to
be bug free.

>
> There should be enough pre-release testing for *RC* level
> releases, so that *major* bugs, like this one, don't penalize users.

Who is being penalized? A few weeks ago those running the initial release
of that "early look" SP1 got a blank page when going to Windows Update. <G>

> After all, we're dealing with Windows *Server*,
> and not with a *consumer* product, although the
> same care should be taken with consumer products.

> To dump Server OS users
> into *update limbo* is not good.

Yikes! How did we get to that crisis? <G> Users of RTM Server 2003 are not
in "update limbo" at all and never have been. This is strictly a Beta
issue.

I would rather not continue to clutter this newsgroup discussing Beta
issues, so have set this post up to "follow up" to email. Thanks in advance
for honoring that.


--

....Sky

Tom "Sky" King
=============

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/r...ayEnglishAlso=

Peter


"Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Thanks, Poomba1.
>
> Would you have an URL for RC2 ?
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
> =====================
>
> "Poomba1" <> wrote in message
> news:A4F6D35C-72B6-459E-BE3D-...
>> Well they've released RC2, which I'm betting deals with this, considering
>> they released it today along with the security bulletins....
>
>> "Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have to be on the dark side to
>>> complain of being blind-sided by this bug.
>>>
>>> Users shouldn't be penalized just because they
>>> accepted Microsoft's offer to install a release candidate.
>>>
>>> If RC1 was buggy, and that reflects on not being
>>> able to update Windows, RC1 should never have
>>> been publicly distributed.
>>>
>>> There should be enough pre-release testing for *RC* level
>>> releases, so that *major* bugs, like this one, don't penalize users.
>>>
>>> After all, we're dealing with Windows *Server*,
>>> and not with a *consumer* product, although the
>>> same care should be taken with consumer products.
>>>
>>> To dump Server OS users
>>> into *update limbo* is not good.
>>>
>>>
>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>>> =====================
>>>
>>> "Sky King" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>> > Poomba1 wrote:
>>> >> Well Rc's really are a level above beta's
>>> >
>>> > And way, way short of being RTM quality.
>>> >
>>> >> and should be supported
>>> >
>>> > Nope, not supported at all. Check the words every user had to accept
>>> > before that Beta would install.
>>> >
>>> >> This is a huge bug
>>> >
>>> > Again, no. Not a bug at all ---->>> for THIS newsgroup. Feel
>>> > free to
>>> > report it as such in whatever non-public newsgroup(s) are associated
>>> > with
>>> > that Beta.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > ...Sky
>>> >
>>> > Tom "Sky" King
>>> > =============
>
>