Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004 261

Posted by michael from the day-late-and-dollar-short dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004 More

Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004

Comments Filter:

  • C64 SP 920293420 (Score:4, Funny)

    by cdtoad ( 14065 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:07AM (#6731446) Homepage
    Due out November 12th 2003

  • calendar? or fiscal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by David E. Smith ( 4570 ) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731451)
    Since the article doesn't include sources or citations or anything, we can't even be sure if they're referring to calendar year 2004, or fiscal year 2004 (which, for MSFT, I believe runs from July 2003 through June 2004).


    If they're referring to fiscal year 2004, that's between January and March of next year, which isn't nearly so bad.

    • Yeah and which calendar - I'm assuming Gregorian, but if they mean the Liberalia Triday Calendar then that's next Friday :o

    • Re:calendar? or fiscal? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:29AM (#6731575)
      Microsoft have already confirmed this to be the case. See
      • http://www.neowin.net/
      It is fiscal 2004, therefore somewhere in the first quarter of 2004.
    • A yearly accounting period that does not start or finish with the calendar year. For the federal government, the fiscal year begins October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends -- for example, a fiscal year that ends on September 30, 1997 is called fiscal year 1997. Congress passes its budgets in the calendar year that a fiscal year starts. For example, the budget for fiscal year 1997 is passed in 1996. Note: the dates for the fiscal year changed in

  • Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brandonlp ( 632900 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731452)
    Reasons... who needs reasons? When you're Microsoft, you don't have to give reasons for anything. Especially in a time where you're coasting through a big vulnerability in your operating systems without really providing many answers. I figure by late-2004, a clean install of XP with SP1 should have about 50 additional critical updates for it (... there are 27 since SP1), and the entire installation process will take 2 hours (an hour to install XP w/ SP1 slipstreamed.. and an hour to install the 50 updates). What a shame.

    • Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:23AM (#6731533)
      Reasons... who needs reasons? When you're Microsoft, you don't have to give reasons for anything.

      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:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cioxx ( 456323 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:09AM (#6731856) Homepage
        When you're pretty much any company, you don't have to give reasons to everything you do. At least not publically.

        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.

        Even Apple is perfectly entitled to do the same.

        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.

    • an hour to install XP w/ SP1 slipstreamed.. and an hour to install the 50 updates

      This is a total pain in the arse for small OEM's like myself - updating your master technician computer with all the latest patches is an eleven-step process per patch.
      Many of these steps involve such things as:

      Using Notepad, edit

      \Opktools\Lang\JPN\SKU\Pro\x86\i386\Dosnet.i nf

      an d

      REN Q308387_WXP_SP1_X86_JPN.EXE Q308387.EXE

      Here's hoping Microsoft include a "Windows Update" for OEM Pre-installs...

      moog

  • Other windows fixes (Score:3, Funny)

    by secondsun ( 195377 ) <secondsun@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731454) Journal
    Redhat [redhat.com]
    Debian [debian.org]
    SuSe [suse.com]
    Apple [apple.com]
    Linux-Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com]
    Gentoo [gentoo.org]
    FreeBSD [freebsd.org]

  • Ironic.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by AbbyNormal ( 216235 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731455) Homepage
    Isn't that the time that "Clean" up worm is set to expire?

  • XP bug free (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731456)
    Of course, the real reason for the delay is that after SP1, XP is almost completely bug free (except for thost pesky third-party apps that keep crashing...)

  • The press release has a typo in it (Score:5, Informative)

    by Surak ( 18578 ) * <surak&mailblocks,com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731458) Homepage Journal
    As I stated to daddypants, who IGNORED ME ahem, Michael, Wininformant has the real story [wininformant.com]. Due out in Q1-Q2 2004, not Q3-Q4.

  • Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:08AM (#6731460)
    Could it be some unknown vulnerabilities that need to be patched or need bugs in their patches fixed? In SP1, they silently fixed some serious "script kiddie" internet explorer vulnerabilities that they would rather not admit to having. Could it be that they're trying to do this again?

    • ... or maybe they're punishing AMD for assisting Linux? ( SuSE Enterprise [suse.com] and Gentoo ( near the top of the page ) [gentoo.org] )

      AMD simply doesn't DARE make AMD64 chips in volume until MS releases an AMD64 version of their OSs, and delaying the SP that coincides with AMD64-capability-in-MS-Windows means knocking-out a, what, a half-billion bottom-line $$ from AMD?

      .. and yeah, I realize Gentoo's doing it on their own, but it must burn MS to see Linux gaining ground on kit that MS didn't authorize, and this'll hurt A

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by iceT ( 68610 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:09AM (#6731464)
    The security community breathed a collective sigh of relief that there would be no new influx of security patches to patch the new service pack until late next year.

    Then they went back to tracking the CURRENT vulnerabilities.

  • Finally!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AlexeiMachine ( 604654 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:10AM (#6731468)
    They finally understand what a buffer overflow is, and this time, they'll *really* *really* fix all of them.

  • ...and WinInformant says otherwise (Score:5, Informative)

    by OfficerNoGun ( 686128 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:11AM (#6731473)
    WinInformant [wininformant.com] says that the statement meant Fiscal year 2004, which ends in June 2004 for Microsoft, and that SP2 is due out mid 2004.

  • Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gokulpod ( 558749 ) <gpoduval@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:11AM (#6731474) Homepage
    The Register reported on 28 March this year that a service pack 2 build has been leaked [theregister.co.uk]. So if the Service Pack is more or less ready, what is Microsoft going to incorporate into it in 1.5 years ?

  • One more push-back and SP2==Longhorn? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Delgul ( 515042 ) <(ln.retlifmapsenilno) (ta) (drareg)> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:11AM (#6731476) Homepage
    Convenient...

  • Win XP SP2 = Longhorn? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by narratorDan ( 137402 ) <narratordan@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:11AM (#6731477)
    The story is basically saying that SP2 will incorporate things that MS "innovated" in the last year. Firewalls, anti-virus, etc, all stuff thats also supposed to be in Longhorn. Silly.
    • According to wininformant, this is not at all the case. In fact, the relavent snippit of that short blurb is:
      "[SP2 will] not [include new] features, but there will be a few things that we're adding to that."... The Microsoft representative also told me that XP SP2 would include no major new features but would instead consist of all the bug and security fixes Microsoft released since XP was issued in October 2001.
    • The story is basically saying that SP2 will incorporate things that MS "innovated" in the last year. Firewalls, anti-virus, etc, all stuff thats also supposed to be in Longhorn. Silly.

      Didn't microsoft promise (under force) to only put fixes in servicepacks and not add new 'features'?

  • Shock, horror... (Score:4, Funny)

    by killermal ( 545771 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:11AM (#6731478)
    Windows users will have to wait till 2004 for a new set of features that can be exploited.

  • A typo apparently... (Score:2, Informative)

    by MikShapi ( 681808 )
    At least as the other article [wininformant.com] linked in the first comment of the article in question plainly states.

  • Odds are (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hamon ( 698286 )
    They probably want to make their Windows Server 2003 customers feel better by making sure *their* SP comes first. Y'know, to make up for the "but it's secure out of the box!" gaffe.

    Or maybe they are thinking about stuffing in the virus scanning "features" they've been rumoring about...

    Eh, it's just a service pack...
    • They probably want to make their Windows Server 2003 customers feel better by making sure *their* SP comes first. Y'know, to make up for the "but it's secure out of the box!" gaffe.

      Yeah it's only when you put it on your box that it's insecure.

  • Hotfixes??? (Score:3, Funny)

    by winstarman ( 624536 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:24AM (#6731546) Homepage
    Sometimes it really concerns me when my computers have more "MS Hotfixes" installed than actual programs.

    Hmm... I guess the more you install the better it runs. That sure sounds odd.

  • Microsoft acting odd (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:25AM (#6731548) Homepage
    Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

    IE development ended (sort of)
    Outlook express development ended
    Service packs under long delay

    Just an observation.

    • Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

      IE development ended (sort of)
      Outlook express development ended
      Service packs under long delay

      Just an observation.

      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.

    • An obvious sign of the end of the world

      -OR-

      MS's focus on the projects that make the real money, XBox, and MS Keyboards and mice
    • Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

      IE development ended (sort of)
      Outlook express development ended
      Service packs under long delay

      Let's not forget:

      MS with their new Open Source lab
      MS dropping IE for Mac (completely)
      MS and SCO
      MS snagging Virtual PC

      Criminy...there was another that raised my brow but I didn't have my morning stuff yet...
    • Apparently Outlook Express development hasn't really ended. Check out this BetaNews article: MS Backtracks on Demise of Outlook Express [betanews.com].
    • Hopefully they're taking the time to fix all of the bugs and security holes and do it properly!

    • Re:Microsoft acting odd (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cyno ( 85911 )
      I think they want to integrate voice activation stuff into Longhorn. If they're really serious about this sort of thing then it might take some resources.

      Plus they have a lot of explaining to do about their trustworthy computing intiative. We'll see how that pans out.
    • IE development ended (sort of)
      Outlook express development ended
      Service packs under long delay

      Just an observation.

      The economy is slowing down and they're focusing on things that will make them money, perhaps? At one point 20% of Microsoft's development force was working on Internet Explorer and related technology --- they can't keep up that rate of development on loss leaders -- especially when shareholders are getting anxious. After paying out dividends for the first time a while back, they're starting t

  • Competition ruling (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:31AM (#6731591)
    SP1 was mainly motivated by ruling against MS in the states (e.g., the "useful" ability to hide internet explorer if you so chose). My guess is that, amongst other things, SP2 may well be a fix for the currently pending European court case. Hence, they are hanging on to see what they can get away with.

    And by the way guys, this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore. It long since ceased to be Redmond that was made to look stupid by these comments, it is now Slashdot itself, and by extension Linux. Which is a shame. True Linux and Open Source advocates would do well to consider some basic notions from the field of public relations.

    • Re:Competition ruling (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nolife ( 233813 )
      this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore.

      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.

  • Windows update (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When I click on windows update right now all I get is

    Thank you for your interest in Windows Update

    Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.

    The latest version of Windows Update is available on computers that are running Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000 (except Windows 2000 Datacenter Server), Windows XP, and the Windows Server 2003 family.

    That's all it says - no where to click for an update.

    • Re:Windows update (Score:3, Informative)

      by pbranes ( 565105 )
      Yeah, I'm getting the same thing. Earlier today, I ran windows update on a sersver, rebooted and windows update showed this message. I tried it on my workstation, and it is doing the same thing. Of course, I am running IE 6 on both machines when I using windows update.

      Looks like the wonderful windows update site has failed again.

      • Re:Windows update (Score:2, Informative)

        by James Willard ( 4104 )
        Microsoft has been having problems with the OS Detection portion of the WindowsUpdate code. The solution is to remove the /thanks.asp from the end of the redirected URL so that it just reads something like:

        http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/

  • Linux: The ultimate NT servce pack.

  • Java: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @08:55AM (#6731714) Journal
    Wasn't this the release that the courts told them they had to include Sun's official version of Java in?? MHMMMMM!!

  • Service Packs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chefbb ( 691732 )
    I'm quite content to not have to deal with another XP service pack for a while. The last one for XP gave me fits on several computers that required a complete re-install. And the recent 2K server service pack 4 took our email server out of comission for a day till we uninstalled it. Microsoft's service packs are generally not to be trusted...
  • It does seem to me that MicroSoft is reaping the problems of putting out crusty code.

    Their software is obviously poorly designed and developed compared to other alternatives such as Apple and Linux, so I think it's fair not to put too much faith in their actual internal organisation, or in the modularity and quality of expandability of the code itself which is probably (speculation) just as poor.

    It's that old saying about Windows being...

    a patch release for 32-bit extensions and a graphical

  • Holy Crap? You have to be kidding me! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @09:04AM (#6731813)
    I can't believe this! Software not being released on time? I'll bet that this is the first time in the history of software development that someone didn't hit their target release date. Oh the humanity! Won't someone please think of the children...

    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.

  • Auto updates don't have to suck. For instance, take a sample of your users, say the three or four that actually have a clue, and can survive should their PC be down for 30 minutes (hint: office assistants. Managers who like to feel special) while you re-image it. Set their machines to download and install the updates automatically, once a week. Let them know that if they see anything out of the ordinary, call you on the spot. The rest of the flock updates once a month.

    Now you've got a control group to test updates on. If MS manages to drop the ball and release a huge failure of a patch (not all mickeysoft patches are failures), you haven't lost your entire system. In a perfect world, bad patches don't get released, but the world's not perfect and *all* operating systems need to be patched.

    Another option. You've got three different settings for auto updates. Notify before download and notify before install, Download automatically and notify when they're ready to be installed, and Auto download, auto install. Set your boxes to download/notify and don't install until you know the patch to be safe. I will grant you that Auto/auto can be suicide in a production environment.

    Bitching because microsoft makes 2nd rate software is a fine avocation. Bitching because you have to support their crap software is the slashdot equivilent of the national past time. But bitching because you're too lazy to make an effort? Try lighting a candle for once instead of just cursing the darkness.
  • PC Satisfaction extends the native functionality of Windows XP with services such as an enhanced firewall and virus scanner that give customers a better Windows experience out of the box.

    translation: how many third party ISV's can we assimilate
  • is that they're called _Service_ Packs - MS portreys it as if they're doing their customers a favor by coming to the rescue when evil hackers, worms and viruses attack them. Since most people don't understand what a virus really is (other than something created by evil hackers and coming to damage their computers) and are being told that MS is giving a patch to protect them they think Microsoft is being nice and helping them. I wish they were forced to call them "We fucked up, and we're very sorry about it,
  • From this article [wininformant.com]...

    "The Microsoft representative also told me that XP SP2 would include no major new features but would instead consist of all the bug and security fixes Microsoft released since XP was issued in October 2001. That fact makes the schedule nonsensical, however. If XP SP2 is just updates, it should ship immediately, not in six months."

    Well, I bet it contains those updates, and all the hidden DRM stuff you don't want to know about!

  • "without giving any reasons" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mnemotronic ( 586021 ) <mnemotronic@noSpaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:05AM (#6732931) Homepage Journal
    1. Possible reasons
    2. Technical
      The product isn't ready for users. Note that this didn't stop them from shipping Bob, ME, XP-SP1, or other problematic software. (I apologize for leaving anyones favorite "what a piece of c**p" off the list)
    3. Business
      Shipping SP2 now would negatively impact the bottom line. Would I perform an very expensive upgrade to the next OS (Longhorn) [wininsider.com] if I had just installed SP2?
    4. Business (part deux)
      Delaying SP2 will help the bottom line. In 2004, MS can offer users a choice between a patch of that pesky ol' XP, or The Fabulous, Great, Incredible New, Improved OS that Does So Much More,More,More. Yea, it's hype, but never, EVER underestimate the power of the Microsoft marketing department.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close