RSSWindows Server 2003 SP2 Quietly Released
by Scott M. Fulton, III
With an absence of fanfare, but otherwise on schedule, Microsoft opened up its download page for Service Pack 2 of Windows Server 2003, both 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Perhaps most importantly, enterprises won't have to wait until Longhorn to be able to utilize Windows Deployment Services, the company's new image-based system for pre-composed, remote Windows installations.
Keeping the little abbreviations after the operating system name straight has been a tricky job for server admins. Two years ago, Microsoft released WS2K3 Service Pack 1, which added the Windows Firewall and Group Policy Management Console for the first time. Using both these tools together, admins could craft policies -- not unlike creating filtering rules in Outlook -- for guiding and filtering both incoming and outgoing traffic.
Thus "Release 2" of WS2K3 was released in December 2005 - not a service pack, but a reassembly of the operating system, and by most assessments, a dramatic improvement. Service Pack 2 is an extension to WS2K3 R2 - thus "WS2K3 R2 SP2" becomes a legitimate abbreviation.
Added to SP2 is Microsoft's vastly improved Management Console 3.0, which many admins had already downloaded and installed, especially if they were using the preview releases of Exchange Server 2007. Among MMC3's goals is to make the group policy creation process introduced in WS2K3 SP1 much more intuitive and manageable. MMC is the basic console through which system services can be examined and managed - a sort of "Explorer" for the system internals.
A Windows server has to run a multitude of services simultaneously - that's its primary job, rather than running applications. So MMC gives the admin who doesn't use a command-line tool (such as PowerShell) categorized and organized views of what services are running and their active states. For example, a DNS server for resolving local domain name addresses, would be one component managed through MMC.
Vista Business users who've been anxious to test their policy-based IPsec security console system-wide will now get that chance. Typically, IPsec (which encrypts IP packets and packages them within new ones) has been used almost entirely for VPNs; but with the advent of Vista, businesses can craft policy-based scenarios where IPsec is used for other communications within their domains or forests. One of the benefits of this is that admins can create entire secure domains - pockets of pristine resources, otherwise unattached to the rest of the world, using as few as two IPsec filters.
Admins will no doubt be prepared for the worst, as SP1 deployments two years ago caused noteworthy problems. If a similar tidal wave of bad news erupts from SP2, Microsoft will probably have a solution in the wings: "Windows Server 2007," which is expected to be released prior to the expiration of the year in its name.
33 Comments
Does anyone know if it's possible to run WDS in legacy or mixed mode from a slipstreamed SP2 build?
Is there any way to install RIS as an optional component?
Score: 0
It appears SP2 did NOT include the updates for DST.
Score: 0
From the release notes…
If you installed Internet Explorer 7 after installing Windows Server 2003 SP1, you must uninstall Internet Explorer 7 before you install Windows Server 2003 SP2.
errrrrr....What? Guess I should'a used the Flux Capacitor to do this one in the "Microsoft recommended order."
This is a fairly large oversight IMHO.
Score: 0
Those notes are left over from the RC2. It works fine.
But yeah, let other's install this first. MS has never been very good about their releases (I think XPSP2 is the exception.)
Score: 0
An even larger oversight is the requirement of 1.21 Jigawatts! How are we supposed to generate that kind of power?
Score: 0
I have it installed on a machine with no problem...ofcourse that machine is doing nothing but WDS..:)
Score: 0
I've been testing with SP2 since alpha and am going ahead with it. No problems at all. SP1 had some minor issues with Exchange and SMS, but easy to resolve. SP2 has no such DCOM issues, mostly rollups, WDS and some new changes to IPSec policies, etc. Very nice. Step 1 will be slipstreaming our images for future deployments, then on to the existing servers. Good work MS!
Score: 0
My SP1 rollout was painless, but I was in a small environment at the time. I had 5 servers in the domain and 3 servers at an off-site colo that were not part of the domain. I was running Ex2003 in the domain.
I had zero issues with the SP1 rollout.
Score: 0
I took part in the beta for SP2 and there were *remarkably* few issues or bugs.
This will be a very smooth rollout compared to SP1
Score: 0
I'm glad to see this come out, but I surely do wish it was better supported.
Then again, I still think Windows 2000 level products should still be well supported. :)
I actually like SUSE as a client, by the way, in response to another post. Have not tried it as a server.
I still maintain that DirectX should NEVER have been put in to a SERVER product.
I also wish that you could boot to a fully functional command line environment like you can in Linux and start (and kill and restart) the GUI as a separate, isolated process that does not impact running services.
Score: 0
I also wish you would not live in 20th century anymore...
wake up
DirectX != Direct3D
Score: 0
Gee - how funny.
There is NO reason for DIRECTX in a server OS - period. That is my point. It has nothing to do with 3D.
Graphics should not be a core-ring process.
Score: 0
As you stated about the non-gui interface, I think you are right. there are probably more faults in the gui than there would be in the cli environment. MS, Why haven't you done this? Since they are improving slowly but surely in the cli environment, it will happen someday, maybe. like anyone needs aero on a server!?!?! give me a break.
Score: 0
Longhorn (Server 2007) will support booting to CLI (although I think it will still live in a GUI shell)
http://redmondmag.com/fe...orialsID=640&page=3
Score: 0
Well, you'll like longhorn then, a core installation will have no gui.
Score: 0
That's kinda interesting, but the cutbacks almost do sound too severe. I'd want something to help with direct at-the-machine configuration, either a character based interface (think Norton Commander) or the ability to start the GUI just to help do file management, copy and paste, etc.
Linux has a pretty good balance. You can use the GUI to configure things, start services, etc. and those will all still be working if you KILLX the gui. Samba, for example. It's easier to initially set it up graphically - point and clicking through a list of available shares, etc. Then, once it's all configured, you can kill the GUI if it gets in the way and restart it later if you want.
Score: 0
Maybe. But with Linux already in place, unless Longhorn is a better value in terms of cost and licensing, it may not be worth it.
With Linux you don't have to pay a PER SEAT license fee. You can have as many clients connecting as you want and not worry about cost.
Score: 0
This is, unfortunately, the sort of crap that Windows Server users have come to expect. The problem lies in the fact that there are few viable alternatives. Both Redhat and Solaris are prohibitively expensive. SUSE has reached a new low in quality and Gentoo seems to be losing developer support. It's difficult to just quit when you have enormous amounts of money invested in hardware.
Score: 0
"This is, unfortunately, the sort of crap that Windows Server users have come to expect."
What is? A service pack?
Score: 0
Damn you Microsoft for updating a product!
Score: 0
Gah marketdroid
Updating a piece of software/Updating software nagdamnit!
Score: 0
"If a similar tidal wave of bad news erupts from SP2, Microsoft will probably have a solution in the wings: "Windows Server 2007,"
I knew Scott couldn't write a FULL article about Windows anything without some sort of dig at Microsoft somewhere.
If there are problems with SP2, I bet Microsoft will try to FIX them, as they would with XP SP3, or as they did with the Win2k Service Packs released AFTER XP and Server 2003 came out.
Godwin's Law applies here...
Score: 0
Godwin's Law applies here...
Did someone mention Hitler or Nazi's?
...must have missed that part. (Oh crap, I just did...)
Score: 0
Hmmm...Forgive me, drmessano, but I don't see the "dig" to which you refer. My point was that there really isn't that much time for a new series of patches or roll-ups between now and the probable release of WS2K7 later in the year.
Okay, so I did talk about what would happen in case of a negative outcome after SP2 was installed; but if you're an admin or IT manager, you do have to plan for contingencies. This isn't some dig at Microsoft. What's more, you imply that I dig at Microsoft all the time; would these happen to be the same articles for which I receive six or seven complaints about my obvious pro-Microsoft bias?
Sure, Microsoft will work to fix any problems. But WS2K7 may very well be the fix.
-SF2K7
Score: 0
http://www.betanews.com/...ade_Dilemmas/1172009674
I won't reiterate my comments, but it was clear you took a few shots at a product you had no clue about, and it came across, much like this article, like Microsoft bashing.
I am an admin, and I was aware of the few SP1 issues. They were no worse than any other service pack that included new technologies (versus an almost bugfix-only SP).
You say in your comment: "Sure, Microsoft will work to fix any problems. But WS2K7 may very well be the fix." Again, I SERIOUSLY doubt Microsoft will roll out this (or any) service pack and tell the customers "Oh sorry, we broke something? Suck it, buy the new OS that's coming out in a few months. Until then, enjoy your downtime."
You should do some reading up on the support phases for Microsoft products and maybe talk to a few admins that deal with 2000 Pro/Server, XP, 2003 Server every day, and ask them about service pack releases, showstopper bugs that made it into the released SPs in the past, and how MS handled them. You may learn something.
This whole article sounds like an announcement with a nice, healthy dose of FUD.
Score: 0
No, I was close to invoking it.
Score: 0
Well, sir, I do appreciate that you're an admin, and I'll certainly listen to your input. I also appreciate your opinion that Microsoft won't tell admins to hold off on any problem fixes until 2K7. I also don't believe Microsoft would put admins on hold; but there won't be - and perhaps there shouldn't be - any new rollups or service packs until 2K7.
As I'm certain you'll recall, the whole issue of whether there would be an SP1, then the sudden appearance of R2, were surprises to a great many people. At that time we learned that the roadmap is a variable, and we all need to adapt to change.
But I am sorry that you somehow think there's so much as a teaspoon of FUD in this otherwise fairly simple little piece. By now, I've written and published several thousand pages on the topic of Windows Server. If I had any doubts as to its value in the workplace and its quality as an operating system, I'm certain I would have been discovered by now. I have no fear, no uncertainty, and no doubt as to the fact that Windows Server is a fine and manageable system - oh my, it has problems, but there's nothing so wrong with it that smart people such as you and me can't fix.
As to your advice, I would extend that to anyone in the business: Let's all talk to people in the know. We may just learn something.
-SF3
Score: 0
You tell me you agree, yet dispute it in the same paragraph...
You're correct, there won't be a rollup or SP before Server 07.. but your point was:
"If a similar tidal wave of bad news erupts from SP2, Microsoft will probably have a solution in the wings: "Windows Server 2007".."
No, I believe their solution will be a SP2a in the case of a major bug caught early, or definitely a hotfix for whatever problems may erupt. You do realize that SPs are packaged fixes and security updates, many of which get released either on patch tuesday or in the case of hotfixes, as needed.. right?
I called it FUD because you're essentially saying "Prepare for the worst.. if SP2 has problems, you'll need Server 2007 to save you, because that's likely Microsoft's answer." That's my problem with this writeup.
There's many things to complain about when it comes to Microsoft. The sarcasm is best saved for the real problems.. like WPA/WGA false positives and the whole Novell IP thing.
Score: 0
ITA. The suggestion that SERIOUS admins' best option for "sanity" would be Server 2007 is ridiculous. Obviously MS will release fixes to whatever SP2 breaks. OBVIOUSLY the vast majority of admins will NOT upgrade to Server 2007 instead of SP2 (WITH ITS ISSUES) since 2007 will multiply the amount of issues by, say, 1,000 and most businesses & will just burn money (not sufficient added value), so they will see no reason to go for Server 2007 until 2009... (2003 and XP are just PERFECT together). Forget Vista for 6mo (if you don't wanna pull all your hair out, that means even "hidden" from sight hair in your midbody area).
Score: 0
hehe
Score: 0
Should have called it R2D2 :)
Score: 0
right on brother!
Score: 0
I am of the opinion we're riding this MS train because we have to due to what our businesses have chosen to run on, not what we ultimately conceive might or has worked better for some systems/industries. I've been working with MS products for a long time, and I have been through many ups and downs with it. Let's be professionals and document what we find--that's what we do best. We *are* the test bed unfortunately. Try to imagine Microsoft trying to possibly test for EVERY possible iteration of software we all own and operate. NOT likely, and thus, service packs/hotfixes come out. Vista, whether we like it, is coming too fast and too hard for some of us. Getting familiar with its problems is going to be an ongoing battle, especially if you have to support outside client users who already were forced into getting it on their new laptop. Pretending to believe that all these new (uneducated) users will know how to downgrade to XP successfully and reapply their apps/data is not a smart assumption even if it might be the best choice for now. For IT professionals, we know how to rebuild systems, etc. But can you spend all your time showing people how to rebuild their OS, apps, etc? Microsoft should diligently and quickly prepare hotfixes AND GOOD troubleshooting information/workarounds on how to resolve the bigger problems as they arise in the coming months. I think this is where we have to push harder. I also think Microsoft SHOULD at least show acknowledgement of the issues much quicker even if no known fix is in place. This in itself would relieve some of us who wonder WHY something is broken and if we created it through every day use.
Make support channels stronger even if it means we get information indirectly through blogs and other resources.
I am reading all the material on W2k3 SP2 and yes it will take some preparation and shouldn't be installed blindly as an update. NO service pack should. I'd like to hear about anyone's successes in working with W2k3SP2 and Vista and what if any inconsistencies are found and if immediate workarounds needed to be implemented.
Score: 0