Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Bug Security Upgrades IT

Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup 44

Posted by timothy from the not-a-tasty-fruit-rollup-though dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup More

Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup

Comments Filter:
  • Update Rollup is a half-assed Service Pack.
    • As of this writing, my original parent post has been moded troll. So be it, but this wasn't a troll, I was serious. It looks like Microsoft wanted a fancy new term for a light-weight service pack. Pointless if you ask me. It just sounds like an excuse to put less effort into supporting one of their legacy products.

      Explain to me again the value of buying commercial software if it becomes abandon-ware less than 5 years after its release? 5 years seems like a long time in the software world, but I would
      • Explain to me again the value of buying commercial software if it becomes abandon-ware less than 5 years after its release? 5 years seems like a long time in the software world, but I would be super pissed if I couldn't get parts for my 5 year old car.

        Can you imagine wandering around the shelves of a breaker's yard looking for replacement parts for a 5 year old OS??? that appears to be what computer fairs are nowadays...

    • In other words, MS has to have something to keep admins busy enough to keep them from having time to experiment with platforms BSD, Linux, OS X or applications like OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird, Firefox, Opera, etc.

      Most businesses are finding that MS-Windows 2000 meets their needs better than XP. MS-Windows XP never really caught on except in OEM sales.

      This is a good warning, though. A five year product life cycle kind of defeats any theoretical advantages that should come from having the backing of a

  • Renamed (Score:5, Funny)

    by BollocksToThis ( 595411 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:05PM (#10939788) Journal
    I bet the Market Research department has decided that "Service Pack" makes people associate Windows with buggy, insecure and untrustworthy, while "Update Rollup" makes people think of Uncle Toby and fruity snacks.

  • What's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) * on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:09PM (#10939799)
    Is there a difference in anything but name between a "Service Pack" and "Update Rollup"?

    Or has Microsoft decided that they don't like the term "Service Pack" anymore?
    • maybe service pack would have included some needed features like their bluetooth stack? now if you want some sense to bluetooth on windows you'd have to basically get xp and sp2(and even then cross your fingers and sacrifice a goat just to even the odds a little).

      update rollup sounds like just the security updates rolled into one big install.
    • 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.
    • According to MS itself, an Update Rollup is "a tested, cumulative set of hotfixes, security updates, critical updates, and updates packaged together for easy deployment. A rollup generally targets a specific area, such as security, or component of a product, such as Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS)." http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#up date_rollup [microsoft.com]
    • My understanding is that it is a pain (or perhaps impossible) to slipstream [petri.co.il] a Update Rollup. That just sucks for people who want the latest fixes on a clean install. Somebody please prove me wrong, I want it to be easy, or at least possible to do!

  • Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hdparm ( 575302 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:14PM (#10939820) Homepage
    ...how they always seem to know what best fits our needs and then (6 months later) give us what we need now.

  • Difference? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Apreche ( 239272 )
    What's the difference between a service pack and an update rollup?

    I mean, doesn't a service pack usually imply a group of patches all bundled into one. And an update rollup is... the same thing. So, besides terminology and semantics, is there any realy difference between the two?

    • Re:Difference? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AlexeiMachine ( 604654 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:27PM (#10939883)
      A Service Pack includes all previous Service Packs. A rollup does not.

      So the procedure to install 2000 will be: Win2000, SP4, Rollup, recent patches.

      • But that is not always true. I found out the hard way that Service Pack 6a for windows NT misses out some crutial updates for HAL to allow multi monitors that came out in service pack 3.
        Install SP3, then SP6a, multi monitor will work.
        Install only sp6a, multi monitor will not work.
        Bad luck in my case, I couldnt un-install 6a, but I couldnt install sp3. *Reformat* time.

        • Well, this is Microsoft we're talking about. A Service Pack without bugs wouldn't really be a Microsoft Service Pack now would it?

          But seriously, the Service Pack situation with NT4 was pretty disastrous. SP4 did some funky stuff with the SAM that couldn't be rolled back, etc.

          We haven't seen similar problems with Windows 2000 (yet). But since they're won't be any more SPs, I guess they nailed it for that version.
    • The difference is the rollup has a fresh fruity flavor with vitamin C added! :)

      "All right, it's bloody Albatross flavor then."

  • Change the title. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by narrowhouse ( 1949 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:31PM (#10939892) Homepage
    "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.
  • Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers...

    Do they believe in Santa Claus, too?

  • "Not" as in "Never"??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @08:49PM (#10939956)

    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.

    Does this mean there will never be an SP5?

    I was loading some new boxes yesterday, and, even after SP4, Windows Update wanted to install well in excess of 20 patches [which couldn't be done in one fell swoop because IE6 SP1 insists on being installed solo].

    My guess is that eventually Redmond will listen to their customers on this one.

    PS: Anyone wanna bet that this is due to that gosh-awful security update from last March that hosed so many systems? [Completely screwed all our machines with VIA chipsets.]

    • Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @09:25PM (#10940095) Journal
      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"??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by damiangerous ( 218679 ) <1ndt7174ekq80001@sneakemail.com> on Sunday November 28, 2004 @10:11PM (#10940283)
        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.

      • We're talking servers here, right?

        I certainly hope you don't just slap on the freshest updates, patches, or OSes on yours. I know that I certainly do not on mine, nor know any sane admin who will.

        Would I install a kernel from 1999? 'Course not-- however, I would apply a patched version based on the said code. Is this not, in reality, what 2000 + SP5 would have been?

        It's oft compared to buying cars. I want something that I know will work five years from now, so what do I do? I buy a car from five yea
      • You might not like it, but Windows 2000 is going to be around for a very long time. Most users are very happy with it, it does everything they need it to, and Microsoft has extended the support window to 2010.

        In retrospect, Win 2000 has proven to be incredibly more mature than the Linux OSes from the same period. Some day there will be a Linux Distro that people will WANT to run for 10 years.
      • Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?

        Because they are running computers from that era?

        Upgrading my small office of 40 desktops from Windows 2000 to Windows XP would cost about $40-80,000 (40 new desktops at $1000-2000 a pop, including labor, training, etc). I don't have that kind of money...
      • I should therefore expected to have my Windows 98 machine "forcibly upgraded", I suppose. And here I am, without a spare stick of RAM and a sub-2ghz processor.

      • Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Phleg ( 523632 ) <stephen&touset,org> on Sunday November 28, 2004 @11:21PM (#10940558)
        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?
        • Yeah. I work for CSC on a pretty big international contract. All our new installs for this customer are Win2K3. We've just finished ported our client over to a Windows 2K3 active directory structure.

          I suppose what we really are asking here is not "do you work in a corporate environment" but "do you work in a professional, adaptive, progressive corporate environment, or in a penniless miserly hovel with no agenda for IT future proofing?".

          Application and vendor support still tie us down to some older OS'
      • "Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?"

        Tried and true.
      • I'm still running Win2k Pro on my Compaq Evo N600c laptop with a P3m 1.2Ghz and 768Mb RAM. I ran WinXP Pro on it for about a year, and while it was fast enough, it always had problems that only a reinstall would fix. But every reinstall would bring along new problems. Just as an example, sometimes it would not resume from stand by, other times it simply would not boot, apps would not start or take a very long time to do so, etc.

        I've reinstalled XP Pro about 5 times because of those issues, and every time I

  • Autopatcher 2000. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nicolae ( 760587 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @09:11PM (#10940029) Homepage
    Seriously... just use Autopatcher 2000 [autopatcher.com]. Same functionality as a "Update rollup", but with some tweaks and such. It also means bringing Windows 2000 almost completely up-to-date (If you have SP4 slipstreamed.. if not, you can download the network install and put it on the autopatcher 2k CD in the Service Pack dir) before letting it touch the 'net. (I say almost - the only update I needed was for IE6, which I only use for Windows Update).

  • Slip stream? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @10:44PM (#10940418)
    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.
  • I didn't follow the NT line back then, but from the stories I've heard MS said SP4 would be the last one made, thrn, eventually they released 5, 6 & 6a. Can anyone from the period confirm this?

    My personal view is the marketting dept will have had a hand in this, Win 2K is now nothing but a cost to Microsoft. The more customers they can convince to upgrade through uncertainty about maintenance the better. However we'll end up with SP5 shortly, due to 'good will' and 'popular demand'

    Alex

    PS Having said
    • It happened pretty much the same as this with NT4 - SP7 was promised but then decided not to release it ( on Earth anyway [theregister.co.uk]) and instead issue a security rollup which was according to them what customers wanted.

      While googling for the above link I came across a quote from a consultant

      "The thing is, they've been promising us an SP7 for NT since before Windows 2000 shipped, so how am I supposed to believe them when they promise us additional service pack releases for Win2K after Windows XP ships?"

      How perceptiv

Slashdot Top Deals

Surprise due today. Also the rent.

Close