Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004 261
Aiua writes "BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft has pushed back the release date for the second Windows XP service pack to the third quarter of 2004 without giving any reasons." Update: 08/19 12:52 GMT by M : Another article claims it will be out three months earlier, no later than June 2004.
calendar? or fiscal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're referring to fiscal year 2004, that's between January and March of next year, which isn't nearly so bad.
One thing I don't really get... (Score:0, Insightful)
For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems, I had to wade through a multi-page document filled with fluff in order to determine whether or not it was indeed about the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.
My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book. If I used XP, I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention or even my knowledge really to do so... and I'm a relative expert compared to the vast majority of the people who just want to play Solitaire and do their taxes.
Re:The press release has a typo in it (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the press releases have bugs in now
Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're pretty much any company, you don't have to give reasons to everything you do. At least not publically.
Even Apple is perfectly entitled to do the same.
Re:The press release has a typo in it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Without reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I ment was that the Blaster incident was probably the last nail in their coffin - maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on. That would explain the delay.
Re:Microsoft acting odd (Score:3, Insightful)
They're freeing their capacities for the adoption of a new, brilliant concept, which they have bought from the company formerly known as "SCO":
Unix
It will provide the users with more stability and security.
Re:Without reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Without reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:now for the real question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Without reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter...
The blaster patch on Win2K requires at least SP2 [microsoft.com] which requires 8 hours, 10 minutes to download via dial-up. Because of this, I disable auto-updates on any dial-up PC that I work on. It just isn't bandwidth effective.
IMHO, Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail. The updates should be hands-free, though I doubt that we'll still have trouble getting newbs to run a fix on a PC that doesn't appear to be broken.
The other twist would be the built-in firewall software. Simply run updates to auto-configure it to block known exploits. Anyway that you look at it, there is a big problem.
Service Packs (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong date? (Score:1, Insightful)
We don't know but the size of the patches I had to download some days ago should be enough to release a new one.
Holy Crap? You have to be kidding me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, it's Tuesday. Must be "bitch about Microsoft not issuing updates". Tomorrow is "bitch about Microsoft issuing too many updates".
There is enough valid stuff to complain about when it comes to Microsoft, let's not start just speculating wildly.
Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not entirely. You need to figure the "software industry factor" into the equation before making such a blanket statement. If Ford Motor Co. decided to implement considerably radical changes to their automobile line, they'd list the reasons why it was necessary, which in turn would have to come under public and government scrutiny. Same with any other company that doesn't deal with software.
Somehow software industry is a banana republic that gets off the hook in respect to accountability. If Microsoft was in a business of producing pharmaceuticals, I doubt they would be in a business long enough if Bill Gates didn't go on morning shows personally to assure the public that their drugs are safe, despite the major problems surrounding their product line.
While I'm a very big Apple fan, and advocate their product use at every given opportunity, at the same time I understand how this corporation is known to employ predatory practices from time to time. Killing off smaller competitors, pushing their own standards forward, etc. The paradox lies in Apple's ability to get it right most of the time. But that doesn't mean that Apple would be better than Microsoft have they had 90% market share. When AAPL breaks the 50% market share (hypothetically speaking that is), you'd see far worse anti-user practices than that of Microsoft. I can guarantee that.
Software industry doesn't abide by rules of accepted business practices. "Any company" cannot act like Microsoft, otherwise they'd be out of business.
Re:Without reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, lets get real. You can't secure something as dreadfully wide-open as Windows with a Service Pack. If they say they can, thats just a lie. If they THINK they can, then they should consult a psychiatrist about their tenuous grip on reality.
A project that complex has to be built against a secure design from the drawing board forward. You can't just decide, deployment +18 months later that you're going to now change the software to make it secure. Hey MS has known about this hole for a while (the Slashdot story was, what, two months ago?) and only patched it last month.
It is also possible they want to synchronize the release of "secure" windows XP with the sunset of Windows 2000 to encourage people to upgrade. I'll say this, that MS will be seen for what they are if this turns out to really be the strategy. IT Managers who have struggled against MS worms, virii, and trojans for years will now see that secure Windows was only released to coincide with him forking over thousands of dollars to "upgrade" to a product with features that should have been in (because they were advertised as being there) 1.0. I refer to the ability to plug it into a network without becoming an instant DDoS zombie.
Don't hate on Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
How come whenever Microsoft releases a patch people are all up in arms about it, yet my Redhat box gets patched EVERY DAY because I keep getting errata from Redhat Online saying this vulnerability exists etc etc.
Re:Competition ruling (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people see the current and past actions of MS over the last 10 years and have formed a very negative opinion of how they do business. Your opinion may be different, that does not make it mindless bashing. I consider it to be frustration based on past experience.
Re:Microsoft acting odd (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus they have a lot of explaining to do about their trustworthy computing intiative. We'll see how that pans out.
Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (Score:3, Insightful)