RSSMicrosoft Confirms XP SP2 for 2004
By Nate Mook | Published August 19, 2003, 6:30 AM
Representatives for the Windows client team confirmed a BetaNews report that Windows XP Service Pack 2 will not be delivered until 2004.
Microsoft refused to call the decision a "delay," due to the fact that no timeframe for SP2 was officially disclosed. But the news caught many Windows enthusiasts and analysts off guard, as a release before the end of 2003 was long expected.
Adding to the confusion, Microsoft's Jim Allchin stated at the company's Financial Analyst Meeting last month that SP2 would ship in fiscal year 2004, which began July 1, making the end of calendar year 2003 a realistic target for delivery.
The extended development period for SP2 came to light via Microsoft's Product Lifecycle Web site, which places the second Windows XP upgrade in Q3 2004.
However, a company spokesperson characterized that date as conservative and told BetaNews that Microsoft is currently shooting for a "mid-2004 release." Microsoft is considering updating its Web site to reflect the adjustment, but no changes had been made by press time.
The spokesperson attributed the difference to a communications disconnect between the Windows client and server groups. The Windows server team handles publishing of such product road maps, and was not entirely in sync with the intentions of the client team.
Despite the long gap between SP1 and SP2, Microsoft says it has no plans for an interim Windows XP update at this time. In a recent chat session regarding the Blaster Internet worm, Microsoft product manager John Hazen said, "We do not currently have plans to create a Security Rollup Package for Windows XP, but are exploring ways to make these fixes more readily available and easier to install together."
Windows Update has worked so well that Microsoft says it can now be more flexible with how it rolls out larger updates. Windows XP Service Pack 2 is indicative of this change in thinking, as the company plans to include some new features in addition to usual fixes.
"Microsoft is discovering that more and more customers are using the Windows Update Service to get updates "real time," rather than wait for the release of a service pack," said a spokesperson for the Windows client team.
"We noticed this with SP1, as there was not a tremendous build of anticipation for the SP release. With the Windows Update program, many customers already had taken advantage of the updated code made available to them by the time of the SP1 release."
There are a few issues with the article that are disturbing.
1. There are numerous bugs that were introduced with SP1, and they will now not be fixed until the middle of next year. If Microsoft are hoping that corporations move their clients to XP, they should stop treating XP like a home operating system, considering all the bugs in it (compared to 2K and NT4). Are we all suposed to rely on hotfixes for another 10 months or so?
2. There was also a promise to keep the SPs to bug fixes only to avoid the problem with the NT4 SPs, and those lessons seem to have been forgotten now (at least if we are to beleive the rumours that new features will be introduced).
3. There was also a promise to issue rollup hotfixes every two months. We received exactly one for the OS and one for IE. Since then: nothing...
People have to start complaining, the situation is getting ridiculous. Who wants to install 35+ patches with a new install?
Score: 0
I frequently build out computers for small business and over the pass year I continually must set aside more and more time to install all the updates. Last week I purchased two computers for a small business. I was amazed that after purchasing a Dell computer with XP pre-installed that I still needed to down load 39 updates from Microsoft Update Service. The real time lost from down loading, installing, and rebooting was a whopping 2.5 hours pre computer.
The Update service only works well if Microsoft produces service packs or roll up patches on a regular basis. Microsoft lulling themselves in thinking their update service works so well because of the number of people using it is a joke. We have to use it or it becomes a liability issue to me and\or my customers.
Score: 0
The service pack I don't really care about too much, though it's nice to get a fresh install with it slipstreamed in, however a rollup patch would be nice.
Score: 0
The rollups hotfixes were promised to be every other month. We've only seen one for the OS and one for IE so far...
Score: 0
The real importance of service packs is that it establishes the base product for vendors selling complete systems. The Dell’s I purchase were shipped with service pack 1 pre installed. If Microsoft produced two or three Service packs a year companies like Dell would (hopefully) update there production images to include the service packs and it would greatly reduce the effort of end users and system integrators.
If Microsoft wants to continue their fix as the public discovers model of development they should alter there supply model with official update releases of there OS’s on a regular basis.
Score: 0
I feel your pain.
As a sole tech teacher at a school, I'm given 30 minutes a day to perform maintanence, but applying M$ patches is grossly time consuming. It takes me a week to do one new computer, so I think I'll be done when Longhorn is released. Service packs are the only way I can get that job done.
Delaying XP SP2 at a time when it is needed most tells me that someone at Micro$oft should stop drinking bourbon for breakfast. M$ has been out of touch with reality for years.
BTW, anyone know where I can get my hands on the "beta" service pack?
Have a good day,
Doctor Caligari
Score: 0
A week to do a new computer? ROFL. Ridiculous.
Even on the slowest system that meets XP's minimum requirements all of the post SP1 updates can be installed in under an hour.
Seems like you are the one out of touch with reality.
Regarding your request for the "beta" serivce pack (which it is not) please let us know what school you teach at so that we can make sure that no one we know EVER goes near there and the illegal software you want to use.
Score: 0
I have to disagree with your under an hour statement. The Dell computers that I built out were 2.2 GHz P4 with 256 MB of memory. For internet access I have DSL and my connection package is 1.5 MB download and 768 Kb upload. I keep logs of when I start and finish jobs for billing. For these Dell’s I didn’t even get a phone call during the installation so I now that 100% of this time was on task. The only thing that may have altered the amount of time was that I did do the work with in a few days of the big blackout and I know my DSL is routed through NY. and with MSBlaster being very active in the pass few weeks this could have cause an overly slow connection to Microsoft. I didn’t really notice or keep track of transfer speeds. I will be building out a few more Dells within the next week and I will take notice of the transfer speed along with the time.
Score: 0
Hey, I didn't say "I'm an idiot, and I can't install updates in a timely manner". I said that I am not given time to install critical updates (Stuff like that happens when you have five job titles, and 300 kids to teach). What is "ridiculous" is that M$ likes to blame their OS problems on understaffed IT departments who can't physically touch every system.
Sure, SP1 doesn't take long. But there have been loads of updates since then, and half require a reboot before you install more.
Have a nice day,
Doctor Caligari
Score: 0
Addendum:
1 computer = 39 patches x 10 reboots x installation time x reboot time x running thru the process over and over x helping kids & teachers at the same time x starting over everytime I come back= 2.5 hours
2.5 hours / 30 minutes a day I'm given for updating = 5 Days
Therefore, 1 computer = 5 days
And unfortunately, I'm the only person in a 10-mile radius who has ever heard of Windows Update.
Score: 0
Well, the blame should be put on an understaffed IT department (in this case, a seeminly non-existant one).
For the most part on large networks, especially public schools where bandwidth is VERY limited, if your systems are behind a central firewall, the clients don't need to be updated every time a new patch comes out unless you are having issues with Windows that the particular patch fixes.
Just make sure your servers are up to date, restrict user access to your systems (especially in school, students and teachers don't need to do much of anything other than type up stuff, do research, etc...).
Score: 0
Well, I agree with you up to a point. Where the security patches are concerned, I believe that you should load them ASAP. One of the things that I find most amazing about those people who claim to waste their time downloading the updates multiple times (once for each and every PC) is the fact that they don't just download them once! The Windows Update Catalog does list standalone installers for the patches, and the last time I checked, you can batch install them (and manage to reduce restarts most of the time). Of course, some people should check out MSUS...
PS I would like it if MS came out with a SP more frequently too, but I don't think that people should blame MS for their own ignorance.
Score: 0
The scary part ain't the time necessary to install individual updates. Nope. It's that Microsoft might not include all needed updates until putting out a Service Pack. If you recall, this exact thing occurred with SP-1 where an update was withheld for a couple months by Microsoft until the Service Pack came out.
If SP-2 isn't coming out for a couple years, let's hope Microsoft refrains from withholding updates.
As regards individual Windows updates: Don't know why you guys have to install them individually. The Computer Rodent downloads them in a batch from Microsoft, then clicks to install 'em, and finally reboots if required. So there's three time periods when Bro. Rat has to actually attend the computer ...for two or three minutes each time.
Do the math ! THAT's a maximum of less then 10 minutes dealing with downloading, installing, and rebooting. Sure there's considerable time inbetween each of these steps. Go do something else ! You can even start the d/l, go home, and do the install the next day. This ain't Rocket Science.
The DataRat
The DataRat
Score: 0
WOAH.. Take it easy on the doc. It's sad but the truth about IT in academia is that budget dollars are almost IMPOSSIBLE to allocate without grants and gifts from third parties; you'd have to come out of one such environment to understand that the Doctor's problems are more the norm than the exception. I myself have been in practically every environment and was in the doctor's shoes, working several jobs, being the only truly competent IT person in a small staff, and being spread VERY thin.
Being a teacher on it's own is a VERY demanding job (if you do it the right way) but if you do training, tech support, engineering, software development, software testing, R&D, and try to have a bit of a social life somewhere therein, you can imagine that a simple project could easily drag on. Some of you obviously did not get the point of the Doc's post and your responses were obviously unwarranted, unrelated, or just plain pre-emptive.
In scenarios like the Doc's, a simple service pack is the ideal as it has all the hotfixes up to that point and can be left unattended. Of course, one must take into account the fact that some users get antsy and don't understand the concepts of unattended installs or remote installs, so sometimes you HAVE to babysit these things. Trust me, right now I'm in the middle of patching up a bunch of Apple workstations and, if I'm away for a few seconds, the users track me down; ESPECIALLY if a pop-up window comes up on their screen. ::sigh:: The joys of IT.. This is why I don't just rely on IT to bring in the money; clearly, technology initiatives are going to hell straight across the board and the economy in the US is crutching the data services market.
/me will speak with all of you when he is finished developing his games and taking care of legal jargon
/me will also speak with all of you when his books are officially published
The moral of this story is this: some people have busy work schedules and the ideal situation is not always the case for 92% of the world.. so don't poop on people when they're having difficulties! Ooooh, I pulled that one out of my arse... The moral, that is. ;o)
Score: 0
At one point in time I always downloaded all the patches and saved them to my server but over the years and with all the different versions of windows I found the time it was taking to maintain my patch library wasn’t worth it. I also found that sometimes MS would re-release a patch if they discovered a problem shortly after releasing it. I know of two patches that I down loaded and began using only to read later on that MS re-released the patch and if you installed the patch before some date … you must re-install the patch. For the most part MS update system works very well and I’m pleased with it. But I just don’t think it was designed to have 40 or so updates that you need to apply.
As for your PS statement, your right I went back a searched the MS update sight for someway to down load multiple patches and sitting in the preference section I could turn on a menu choice I have never seen before. I will be trying this feature on the next computer I build out. If this option allows me to select all the patches and it handles the rebooting problem I own you a big thank you.
Score: 0
"We do not currently have plans to create a Security Rollup Package for Windows XP, but are exploring ways to make these fixes more readily available and easier to install together."
How, exactly, could they make it easier than going to Windows Update? (Which really apparently *is* difficult for many many users, as was displayed by the blaster worm last week)
Score: 0
Well at least I can expect a 200MB download for Service Pack 2. What is Microsoft thinking? You'd think after the Blaster Worm they would have pushed up the release. Still, you'd think with 4 more months to "work" on the SP2 they will undoubtly make it a flawless install that will improve overall system performance and plug up any other security risks making XP a more secure system. Yes, I know I'm dreaming, but I'm allowed to dream.
Score: 0
I stand corrected along with many other BN readers. It just didn't make sense that Microsoft would delay such a critical and long-anticipated update. Quite interesting... On one side, I think that's smart on their behalf (besides, people can still use the good 'ol hotfixes to stay up-to-date) but, on the other side, I'm relieved that my main workstations all run Windows 2000. My only loss is supposed lack of gaming support yet all my games run fine. Once again, improved hardware support, efficient use of RAM, and added functionality (such as the ubiquitous PC Satisfaction) are eagerly-awaited. Will Microsoft pull through? Beats me! I just have to say this: I find it funny that you would need a separate component to attain "PC satisfaction"; I would think that should have been a feature available straight out-of-box for ALL their platforms.. Obviously, that's not the case. ;o)
Score: 0