Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup

Ant writes "According to Broadband Reports' news post, both eWeek and TechSpot report Microsoft is scrapping Windows 2000 Service Pack (SP) 5. It will be replaced with an Update Rollup in mid-2005. 'The Update Rollup will contain all security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between SP4 and the time when Microsoft finalizes the contents of the Update Rollup, and a small number of important non-security updates. Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers than a new service pack, there will not be a Service Pack 5 (SP5) for Windows 2000.'"

In other words...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Update Rollup is a half-assed Service Pack.

Interesting...

[hdparm]

...how they always seem to know what best fits our needs and then (6 months later) give us what we need now.

Re:What's the difference?

[blincoln]

Is there a difference in anything but name between a "Service Pack" and "Update Rollup"?

In my experience, a Service Pack would generally include new features, whereas a Rollup package is just a bunch of bug fixes that install all at once.

This move seems to me to be MS trying to wean people away from 2k, so they can make more money from XP, 2003, etc. For most people, 2k is good enough, but it won't be for much longer if it's not kept supported with service packs.

Change the title.

[narrowhouse]

"Microsoft wants you to upgrade."

Get the hint, you haven't paid for the privelege of a MS operating system in at least 3 years and they want more money.

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[obeythefist]

Not quite sure if you read the article there - the rollup incorporates all security patches that were released after SP4. So theoretically, when you install your Win2K box, you then apply SP4, then apply the security rollup, then visit Windows Update and there should be few or no new security patches.

However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999? Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999? Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board. Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system. Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[damiangerous]

However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?

Because a whole lot of people are running a computer from that era? Because you might already have plenty of licenses and Win2k is perfectly good functionality wise? (meaning you only need to plug security flaws, which are product defects anyway)

Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999?

If I was getting it from a distro that backported security patches, sure, why not? There are plenty of production machines that have run that long. Heck I just installed Red Hat 6.2 on an ancient Thinkpad because it was the most appropriate option.

Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board.

But we're not talking about servers.

Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system.

Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2

Well, no, Win2k is the previous version of Windows. Red Hat 5.2 is, what, 5 major versions back? (hard to tell with Enterprise and Fedora) They still support back to version 9, which is still prior to both Enterprise versions and Fedora. It's not at all unreasonable to ask that the current version and one prior version be keep up to date. It doesn't matter how old it is if it was the only thing being kept up to date all that time. A Linux distro from 1999 could be kept current if it was the only version being maintained. Heck ask a Gentoo user, you could install any version of it you find and get it right up to speed. The reason Red Hat 5.2 isn't updated is because they would have to update 5 different versions each time if they went that far back. Not everyone wants or needs to be cutting edge.

Also, considering Microsoft will still sell it to you [microsoft.com] right now, they should damn well support it.

Slip stream?

[Stevyn]

Can it still be slip streamed onto an existing Windows 2000 cd like SP4? It's easy to make and convenient to have an installation CD that already has the updates when you're installing a new system. Installing service packs can take a while and can cause problems, but I haven't had trouble with slip streaming in the updates on windows 2000 and XP.

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[Phleg]

Ever worked in a corporate environment? I can give you plenty of reasons. Application support. Vendor-provided machines. Testing of new Operating Systems. Cost of rolling out upgrades for every machine, when the current OS works fine. Unexpected hiccups in the migration. Any of these sound familiar?

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[burns210]

"Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?"

Tried and true.