Windows XP SP2 Delayed Until Late 2004

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.

Comments

Re:Service Pack?

[socrates32]

What?? You mean there are problems with XP?

C64 SP 920293420

[cdtoad]

Due out November 12th 2003

Re:C64 SP 920293420

[Ryosen]

Shouldn't that be "C64 SP 64738"? ;)

Re:C64 SP 920293420

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

(I hate to do this since I'd rather let people figure out your joke on their own, but I have to know...)

That's the reboot sys call, right? It's been a good few years since my C=64 days.

Re:C64 SP 920293420

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is.

Re:C64 SP 920293420

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!! Good to see I am not the only one who had memorized that memory location.

Re:C64 SP 920293420

[Ryosen]

Yup! Now, do you remember what SYS49152 did? =)

Without reason?

[DrunkenPenguin]

Without any reasons?

There's always a reason! I think Blaster is a reason enough.

Re:Without reason?

[shird]

There's always a reason! I think Blaster is a reason enough.

How is that a reason? The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

Microsoft have been talking about making auto-updating enabled by default in a service pack which may be linked to the delay. They will need to make sure patches are installed without having too many adverse affects. And a way for business users to have it disabled because they would typically not want it enabled.

Re:Without reason?

[OfficerNoGun]

except blaster would be a reason to get a patch out sooner, not later. Plus theres the rumor over at The Inquirer that states theres a mini-sp or sp1a that could come out in a few weeks (because of blaster).

Re:Without reason?

[DrunkenPenguin]

How is that a reason? The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

Yeah, it was fixed about a month ago, but this recent incident that had a huge effect on their customers _must have_ increased their willingness to improve the security of their products once and for all - thus the delay. Or perhaps I'm just daydreaming.. I don't know.

Re:Without reason?

[DrunkenPenguin]

No, no. The Blaster hole was fixed about a month ago. People just didn't patch their products.

What I ment was that the Blaster incident was probably the last nail in their coffin - maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on. That would explain the delay.

Re:Without reason?

[DASHSL0T]

No it was NOT fixed months ago. It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.

I love how misinformation about this gets out, shifting the blame from MS to the sysadmins of the world.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.

And then what? Everyone was on a long summer holiday so they couldn't patch?

Re:Without reason?

[iainl]

If Microsoft want to makee auto-updating default for the clueless without offending business users who would (presumably) want it disabled, so they can control rollout of fixes themselves (both to reduce bandwidth by using the full downloads and the software delivery mechanism of their choice, and just because they want to give things a proper test first), why not do what I think they should have done all along - first only make it the default for XP Home Edition, and second make it a configurable during install.

Re:Without reason?

[Matrix272]

The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

_A_ month hardly constitutes months.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.

And then what? Everyone was on a long summer holiday so they couldn't patch?

From what I've seen, the problem hasn't been sysadmins, it has been the fact that if you have a 28.8 dial-up, downloading several megs of patches isn't that attractive or practical for the home user...

Re:Without reason?

[lpp]

For Joe User and for admins of relatively small business networks, 3 weeks is ample time to try out a service pack to make sure it doesn't break anything that you rely on and to roll things back if it does. For the admins of larger networks, where there may be an even larger number of applications that have to be compatibility tested, 3 weeks may not be enough. If previous MS supplied patches hadn't fscked up application stability in the past, this might not be an issue, but as they have, it is.

Re:Without reason?

[fuckfuck101]

No they're still discussing this, it isn't scheduled to be in XP ever, possibly the next operating system however.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, large corporate networks should have been protected by a draconian firewall, which would have prevented such attacks while the admins lazilly went around patching.

Also, if your IT department can't patch your network in 3 WEEKS then your IT department should get sacked, simple as that.

Re:Without reason?

[swordboy]

Microsoft have been talking about making auto-updating enabled by default in a service pack which may be linked to the delay.

It doesn't matter...

The blaster patch on Win2K requires at least SP2 which requires 8 hours, 10 minutes to download via dial-up. Because of this, I disable auto-updates on any dial-up PC that I work on. It just isn't bandwidth effective.

IMHO, Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail. The updates should be hands-free, though I doubt that we'll still have trouble getting newbs to run a fix on a PC that doesn't appear to be broken.

The other twist would be the built-in firewall software. Simply run updates to auto-configure it to block known exploits. Anyway that you look at it, there is a big problem.

Re:Without reason?

[secondsun]

I doubt MS will enable an autoupdate feature. Too many people have had their systems slagged by crap ms updates to make it worth the negative publicity.

Case in point (anecdote) I had just installed Windows XP (for the third time, something turns me off to computers that act smarter than I) and I decided I would let XP do everything on its own. I was going to be the clueless user and everything would be fine. Ran Windows Update, got buggy vidoe drivers (updated drivers) and poof, I was having BSOD fun.

Until Microsoft can completly prevent events such as this AND erase all doubt in people's mind they will not have auto downloaded auto installed updates.

Re:Without reason?

[dnoyeb]

maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on.

hehe, I don't recall any fines!? no fines, no change.

Re:Without reason?

[Lumpy]

Microsoft have been talking about making auto-updating enabled by default in a service pack which may be linked to the delay.

Oh I really hope they do this. and they force it upon everyone in their typical manner.

corperate already doesn't like microsoft's patches and updates... If they try and pull this crap it will ensure that XP does not get adopted by large companies.

yes, we STILL do not allow XP on the network.. W2K SP3 is the NEWEST allowed.

Granted, it's a stupid stance for corperations to take and many big companies got spanked hard on the last virus round because of not "approving" the RPC patch until it was too late.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the article talks about the rumour that it'll include a new extended firewall, which will be on by default, and new anti-virus software (they just bought an anti-virus company, so it's certainly possible). I would have thought the Blaster worm would have altered priorities for such things within MS.

Re:Without reason?

[Amomynos Coward]

What everyone seems to forget, is the new/re-installations of Windows XP. I for example updated the Windows from ME to XP (about time), and the update went fine...except that Tiny Personal Firewall didn't work anymore. 3 minutes after installation, before I was able to even connect to Windows Update, I got the nice RPC shutdown message of blaster. Oh but if the worm would've been more destructive, I think it would impact the installations of Windows...hmm...

Re:Without reason?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

What I ment was that the Blaster incident was probably the last nail in their coffin - maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on. That would explain the delay.

...and after that, the tiger will change his stripes and George W. Bush will stop telling lies.

Come on, lets get real. You can't secure something as dreadfully wide-open as Windows with a Service Pack. If they say they can, thats just a lie. If they THINK they can, then they should consult a psychiatrist about their tenuous grip on reality.

A project that complex has to be built against a secure design from the drawing board forward. You can't just decide, deployment +18 months later that you're going to now change the software to make it secure. Hey MS has known about this hole for a while (the Slashdot story was, what, two months ago?) and only patched it last month.

It is also possible they want to synchronize the release of "secure" windows XP with the sunset of Windows 2000 to encourage people to upgrade. I'll say this, that MS will be seen for what they are if this turns out to really be the strategy. IT Managers who have struggled against MS worms, virii, and trojans for years will now see that secure Windows was only released to coincide with him forking over thousands of dollars to "upgrade" to a product with features that should have been in (because they were advertised as being there) 1.0. I refer to the ability to plug it into a network without becoming an instant DDoS zombie.

Re:Without reason?

[terrox]

I thought auto-updating was enabled by default in WindowsXP.

Re:Without reason?

[leifm]

Isn't it kind of a catch 22? You either apply patch and quite possibly break some shit, or you get hit with whatever exploit and end up cleaning that up instead.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

...their willingness to improve the security of their products once and for all

You funny. You make me laugh long, long time.

Re:Without reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

why snail mail a **critical** 800 KB patch?

Re:Without reason?

[iainl]

Ick - I just read that back to myself. I'd like to apologise to everyone for a seriously horrible run-on sentence. Point stands, though - given all they are trying to do to keep Home out of the office, and Pro out of the house, this should have been a no-brainer.

Re:Without reason?

[Licensed2Hack]

The other twist would be the built-in firewall software.

Uncle Bill will have the firewall built into the OS, just like his browser. (a.k.a., "tying", antitrust trial, part 2?) Achieved, what, 90%+ usage of IE which has resulted in quite a mess. Probably use Passport and .Net, too...

Re:Without reason?

[markalot]

-------
IMHO, Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail. The updates should be hands-free, though I doubt that we'll still have trouble getting newbs to run a fix on a PC that doesn't appear to be broken.
------

Should Redhat be required to do the same? Should every operating system vendor be required to do the same? Are other operating systems perfect? Am I missing something?

Careful, you might set a standard that only Micro$oft could afford to meet.

Re:Without reason?

[delus10n0]

Have you ever heard of this amazing thing called "High Speed Internet", or this other amazing thing called a "CD-Recordable" ? It's amazing! We can actually download said service pack at a high speed (within minutes) and then "burn" the data onto said CD-Recordable, also within minutes!

Wow, isn't technology amazing?!

Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail.

Also wonderfully enough, you can order any SP on CD for the cost of S&H! AMAZING!

Re:Without reason?

[delus10n0]

XP Home has a firewall enabled by default, and with that enabled, the worm can't hit you (as far as I know.) If you're running XP Pro, enable the firewall and then do your updates.

Re:Without reason?

[delus10n0]

Come on, quit trolling. Microsoft doesn't include drivers in their "critical updates". If you had auto-update enabled, those wouldn't have even been downloaded. Now, if you went to WindowsUpdate and selected them to be installed yourself, aren't you at fault if they crap out?

Also, isn't that what system restore is for? You do take snapshots before updating drivers, don't you? Oh, you don't? Well it's a good thing Windows XP does it for you automagically.

Re:Without reason?

[secondsun]

I did go to windows update and got new video drivers for a geforce 2 mx (a rather popular videocard) which immediatly crashed my system after a fresh install. BSOD on boot, and I could not boot into windows to roll back the drivers. My point was that MS said they were stable and reccomended updates, but they weren't AND they have many instances of things like this that make problems for people trying to work and that they have alot of work to do to fix these issues before they make anything auto install by default.

Re:Without reason?

[delus10n0]

Then boot into safe mode and run system restore. Or choose the "Last Known Good Configuration" on the startup menu. Do I have to hold your hand?

Better yet, in the future don't install drivers from Microsofts Windows Update site. No one's forcing you. Go to nVidia.com and get the latest detonators. Problem solved.

Re:Without reason?

[KalvinB]

"IMHO, Microsoft should be *required* to send critical updates on a CD package via postal mail."

Why? Is this another fantasy law where only MS has to play by it? Simply because YOU refuse to download on dial-up.

Imagine if such a rediculous law went into affect that software companies had to send out patches for exploits on hard media. Every company (including RedHat and every other distro company) would be out of business.

"The other twist would be the built-in firewall software."

Windows does have a built in firewall although it's a joke. Aren't we whining that MS includes Internet Explorer and Media player and now you want them to include firewall software too? What about Norton, McAfee, Linksys, Cisco, etc?

"It just isn't bandwidth effective."

Then make friends with someone with broadband and burn the patches to CD to update your home computer.

It's just so much easier to fall down and play victim though isn't it? Poor you. You can afford a thousand dollar PC but can't spring for $50 to get antivirus and firewall software. MS has to hold your hand.

I wasn't patched when Blaster hit and my computers were completely unaffected simply because I have everything behind a router.

Ben

Re:Without reason?

[shaitand]

I doubt it, I don't think they'll ever learn. Actually I don't think they would know how to if they tried.

Re:Without reason?

[shaitand]

I've yet to see a microsoft SERVICE PACK like the parent suggest be shipped on cd consist of one 800k patch.

Re:Without reason?

[shaitand]

There is a difference between not perfect, and so fucking full of holes it constitutes blatant negligance.

Re:Without reason?

[shaitand]

It costs $15 for shipping and handling, try $.50 worth of packing material, another $.50 (or less) for the labor (when it's actually divided up per cd, you can wrap and tape what, 200 of these suckers an hour without hurrying?) and shipping, a cd is light enough for regular US postage, make it 2nd class, now you've tacked (can't say for sure since I don't pay second class postage) another $.15, so $1.25, nope no markup there.

It's actually alot cheaper than that, aol bulk mails cd's to millions fully knowing 99% of those recieving them immediately throw them in the trash, and they do so on a nonstop basis.

Re:Without reason?

[shaitand]

"Imagine if such a rediculous law went into affect that software companies had to send out patches for exploits on hard media. Every company (including RedHat and every other distro company) would be out of business."

I doubt it, AOL and the other major ISP's nonstop bulk mail MILLIONS of signup cd's with the understanding that 99.99% of them will be thrown away instantly.

"Why? Is this another fantasy law where only MS has to play by it? Simply because YOU refuse to download on dial-up"

As an illegal monopoly it's ok to make rules that only microsoft is subject to, any such rules are part of the penalty for the crime they commit, which is akin to murder... actually it's worse since they have greatly hindered the progress of mankind.

Also not all computer users have or can get internet access.

To top that off, I haven't seen any other software vendors who push EVERY piece of software they make out so full of holes and bugs that it constitutes BLATANT NEGLIGANCE.

"It's just so much easier to fall down and play victim though isn't it? Poor you. You can afford a thousand dollar PC but can't spring for $50 to get antivirus and firewall software. MS has to hold your hand."

They better hold his hand, they wrote the shoddy software which makes anti-virus software neccesary on windows.

Re:Without reason?

[eyepeepackets]

"_must have_ increased their willingness to improve the security of their products once and for all"

Wrong! From MS's point of view, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixed. They get the money from their customers, anything beyond that is simply not relevant. MS has shown this to be true so many times and in so many ways over the years (decades!) that to think otherwise is nothing less than indulgent self-deception.

The only thing MS seeks to "secure" is their lock on foolish people's wallets through deceptive marketing, manipulation of the government, etc.

Get your head outta your ass, please.

calendar? or fiscal?

[David E. Smith]

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.

Re:calendar? or fiscal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's off some product lifecycle page, not in the context of revenue.

Re:calendar? or fiscal?

[znaps]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck refers to fiscal years when announcing product/patch releases?

Twat.

Re:calendar? or fiscal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:calendar? or fiscal?

[AKnightCowboy]

Who the fuck refers to fiscal years when announcing product/patch releases?

Every software company I've ever had to deal with. Companies operate on fiscal years not calendar years.

Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[brandonlp]

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....

[Mr_Silver]

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....

[g0hare]

Is that realtime or your time? Cuz I can get XP installed and completely patched in under 15 minutes of my time. Realtime under an hour. Of course I do use Active Directory and preconfigured RIS images and SUS, and that might not be your case.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[Renderer of Evil]

It's a smart move on behalf of Microsoft. They're buying time before the OS becomes further bloated beyond recognition. There is only so much crap you can throw at it before it loses whatever stability users came to expect with the vanilla edition. Service packs break applications, it's not really news. It creates a lot of work for IT personnel to ensure these SPs don't interfere with their 3rd party applications, which in turn produces research data putting Windows in a terribly vulnerable position in terms of TCO compared to Linux.

Already we are seeing major instability in XP, with constant crashes, random reboots and other issues. Just visit any forum and you'll see.

The positive side? More and more people are looking for alternatives such as Linux and Macs. Suddenly, the average internet Joe doesn't fear the scary command line of Linux, thanks to ingenius work of few distributions who made it infinately easier for less savvy users to deploy the operating system on their computers. Users are realizing that the myth created by MS advocates that Linux doesn't do anything aside from giving you the bragging rights to call yourself "1337" is no longer valid. It's adequate and even superior for any modern task likely seen by majority of the computer-using population.

WindowsXP is in war with itself, and there are no winners in this one.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[iamthemoog]

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

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[lone_marauder]

When you're pretty much any company, you don't have to give reasons to everything you do. At least not publically.

I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on certain technicalities, but that notwithstanding, your argument is rather meaningless. If local regulations permitted, a company could kill people for sport. If the discussion is sufficiently hypothetical, there is no practical limit to its absurdity.

The forces of competition and the need to retain customers would normally motivate a company to provide critical information relating to the support of its products. Microsoft has long since outgrown either of those needs, as the grandparent so succinctly points out. Microsoft is therefore significantly more divorced from its user base than is any other software manufacturer, and the last week seems to indicate that this is indeed bad(tm).

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[cioxx]

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.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[Mr_Silver]

I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on certain technicalities, but that notwithstanding, your argument is rather meaningless. If local regulations permitted, a company could kill people for sport. If the discussion is sufficiently hypothetical, there is no practical limit to its absurdity.

There is a subtle difference between not telling people why you're not releasing an update and not telling people why you've broken the law.

Any software publisher is under no obligation to explain to the general public why something is delayed or why they aren't releasing a product. The public do often get a reason because it's good PR - but that doesn't mean that they should come to expect it.

Finally, I see no reason why the SEC would disagree. They haven't mandated that Microsoft must release updates and therefore Microsoft could, tomorrow if they so wish, stop producing any bug fixes full stop. Without reason.

Short of switching to a new operating system, there is nothing the general public could do about it. Microsoft will have broken no law in their actions.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you feel you have to do all that, including renaming files? Do you feel you have to justify your position in the company or something by being a pain in the arse?

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[Johnny Mnemonic]

When AAPL breaks the 50% market share (hypothetically speaking that is), you'd see far worse anti-user practices than that of Microsoft.

I am also a huge Apple fan--ex-employee, as a matter of fact; now full time Apple IT guy--but I agree 100%. Apple's feeling is that there are two ways of doing something--their way, and the wrong way. I do feel that they are right much more often than not, but they're wrong often enough that I wouldn't want them to make all of my decisions, either.

And actually, I think that Jobs knows this. I think the "Mercurial Prince" would rather have the ability to make sudden, radical changes than have to conform to the tyranny of the majority; if that freedom requires maintenance of a boutique market share, so be it. His problem is that there is a critical mass that developers need to maintain, and Apple is pretty close to falling below that now, so he would like to get some distance on it--say, 10-15% of the market. But much more than that, and the pressures of the market place would be too demanding of Jobs, and he would break some useability out of spite.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[zurab]

... 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 ...

This is a typical - "if pigs had wings [insert your agenda here]" - argument. In fact, comparing different industries like that is misleading at the very least. As another example, let's compare airplane manufacturers and fashion industry manufacturers. You would agree that if Boeing were to move or outsource its Everett factory and a large part of their corporate office to China, it would generate more public scrutiny than fashion manufacturers doing the same. Substitute fashion with semiconductors, software, most household items you buy at the store and you'll see comparing "accountability" between industries yields a very large spectrum from none to complete.

Now, you can argue that software makers need to be accountable to public but a blanket comparison to automobile or pharmaceutical industries is not supporting that argument, rather, demonstrating its fallacy. Software industry does not need to be "accountable" only because auto and airplane industries are. Rather, the question is what public good will this imposed larger "accountability" bring? And what will be drawbacks?

As I see it:
Pros:
1. lawyers are able to sue software manufacturers for just about every bug found;
2. illusion of "safe and secure" software.
Note: I am not sure these are pros.

Cons:
1. entry barrier raised (legal and financial);
2. big corporations get special treatment, small companies suffer;
3. mandatory hardware encryption (mandated by corps and/or gov't);
4. Free software gone (both from legal and economic factors - see item 1);
5. reinforcing monopoly power in the industry, oligopoly/cartel at best;
6. driving out competition in PC hardware market.

You see, until someone argues what public good larger software industry "accountability" will bring and how, I fail to see the legitimacy for its comparison to other industries.

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.

I agree here. As it stands right now, by their own practices Apple has set their own market share ceiling at about 5%. I don't see how this will change unless they make drastic changes, everything else being equal. And that is the key. Of course, if some legislation created under "larger accountability" banner, as its byproduct, forms MS-Apple cartel on consumer software market then your analysis will kick in. As it is now, Apple, MS, and others do have to compete against each other, and that is good news.

Software industry doesn't abide by rules of accepted business practices. "Any company" cannot act like Microsoft, otherwise they'd be out of business.

That's true, but most companies are not monopolies in their respective industries. There are many examples of companies acting similar to MS. In fact, all monopolies are good examples. Take a look at the history of oil industry and telecommunica

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason....

[tgrigsby]

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.

Wha-? Now hang on. FMC certainly does make radical changes to the auto line without explaining them. Ask FMC about the ignition module mounted too close to the engine so they could save $4 per vehicle. The result: the ignition module overheated and cut out, usually on the highway, leaving the driver with not steering and no power to the brakes. After numerous fatilities and the inevitable class action suit, Ford was forced to pay damages and punitive fees. That is just ONE EXAMPLE of how Ford does NOT answer to the public for the design decisions they make unless FORCED TO DO SO by the court system.

Want to read more? Try The Anti-Ford Page. Lot's of stories from real consumers about how Ford makes any design decision they want and to hell with the customer if things go wrong.

To bring this message back full circle to the topic at hand, Microsoft can make any design decision they want without first checking with their customers. On the other hand, if they make blatantly bad design decisions that result in fiscal (or even real) damages, they should rightfully be held accountable for such. It's my suspicion that Microsoft is feeling the heat from:

• the multitude of very public security deficiencies that have come to light lately, and
  
• Linux server and desktop

I also suspect that there is some kind of DMCA crap being incorporated into SP2. It should be a real fun release.....

Re:Service Pack?

[jmays]

err cumulative .....

Other windows fixes

[secondsun]

Redhat
Debian
SuSe
Apple
Linux-Mandrake
Gentoo
FreeBSD

Re:Other windows fixes

[Jugalator]

I found another one. ;-) I doubt it's infected by Blaster, etc, while still offering perfectly functional internet connectivity.

Ironic..

[AbbyNormal]

Isn't that the time that "Clean" up worm is set to expire?

Re:Ironic..

[Winterblink]

Not really, since every day there are many viruses/worms/whatevers out there that have payloads set to go off on that specific date.

XP bug free

[Anonymous Coward]

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...)

Re:XP bug free

[DemoLiter]

XP is almost completely bug free (except for thost pesky third-party apps that keep crashing...)
Some of the most bug-infested third-party apps are :
- Internet Explorer
- Outlook
- Windows Media Player
- Microsoft Office Suite
- XP Network Protocol Drivers
- XP GUI subsystem
- NTFS subsystem

Ahh, but it's nice to know that at least the kernel is bug free for the most time

Re:XP bug free

[Trigun]

Don't get me started on the NTFS disks shutting down dirty for no apparent reason, then refusing to start at all on a subsequent boot, all for the lack of a god-damned checkdisk option in your little friggen menu, a seperate boot volume, or something intelligent like that. What a friggen hack!

Re:XP bug free

[dhopton]

It's called the recovery console you tart. You can run chkdsk from this menu. No, you don't need the CD if you install the recovery console onto the HD.

Re:XP bug free

[Trigun]

Yes I know about the recovery console, which is not installed by default, and the OS is not smart enough to figure out to run it first, or at least give you the option to run it. How about a It seems your hard drive is not bootable. Would you like to run a disk check on this (This solves most problems without you having to call an expensive technician)[Y/n]? prompt, instead of giving you a list of options which have absolutely no chance of working. Or a better option of fixing NTFS. How about those options?

The press release has a typo in it

[Surak]

As I stated to daddypants, who IGNORED ME ahem, Michael, Wininformant has the real story. Due out in Q1-Q2 2004, not Q3-Q4.

Re:The press release has a typo in it

[jez_f]

Then why hasn't Microsoft changed the typo on this page

Even the press releases have bugs in now :)

Re:The press release has a typo in it

[the_pooh_experience]

Then why hasn't Microsoft changed the typo on this page

Does msblast.exe, Chinese gov't outlawing internal use of MS software, MS losing German gov't contracts to linux distributers, and court cases mean anything? MS has plenty on their plate, and I think an html typo is the least of their worries.

Re:The press release has a typo in it

[CommandNotFound]

Then why hasn't Microsoft changed the typo on this page

They've been trying, but their machines keep rebooting on their own for some reason...

Re:The press release has a typo in it

[matth]

I don't see the typo?

Possible reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's not ready yet?

Re:Possible reason

[spotteddog]

When has that ever stopped Microsoft before?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Why?

[DancingSword]

... or maybe they're punishing AMD for assisting Linux? ( SuSE Enterprise and Gentoo ( near the top of the page ) )

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 AMD deeply more than it'll give-ground to Linux, IF AMD obeys and doesn't release quantity AMD64 processors until MS allows it to...

And No, I don't believe for an instant that that could be the primary motivation, but it could have been an internal-to-MS political tipping-point, since that is the way authority-politics works...

And in other news...

[iceT]

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!!

[AlexeiMachine]

They finally understand what a buffer overflow is, and this time, they'll *really* *really* fix all of them.

Re:Finally!!

[hplasm]

....XP has its buffers removed!!

TaDa!!

Re:Finally!!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia buffer overflows YOU!!!

...and WinInformant says otherwise

[OfficerNoGun]

WinInformant 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

[gokulpod]

The Register reported on 28 March this year that a service pack 2 build has been leaked. So if the Service Pack is more or less ready, what is Microsoft going to incorporate into it in 1.5 years ?

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[RealityShunt]

Digital Pants Management

realityshunt

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[azzy]

a heck of a lot of extra critical patches

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[Jugalator]

Seems like it was a pre-beta build of SP2 to me. Not what I'd call more or less ready.

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Windows then.

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[jayteedee]

Since Microsoft's service packs are close to beta or alpha products to begin with, why would anyone use a leaked or pre-release version of something Microsoft was planning on releasing. I rememeber (and I'm sure many, many others do too) the absolute fun to be had by installing the first few service packs on NT 4.0. What a game of roulette that was! Has anyone ever tried to uninstall a service pack on 2000 or XP? I see they have that option now (and the 100MB of extra system file cruft from the prior files stored on the HD) and was wondering if they actually work, or does it cause even more headaches. An actual uninstall feature on NT 4.0 would have been very welcome in leu of reinstalling from the get-go all over again. I'm real hesitant to even install a service pack these days, but have never worked up the courage to UNinstall a service pack, although I must admit I've haven't needed to lately either.

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2

[Jugalator]

Uninstallations of service packs work if you tell the installer to support uninstallation. I wouldn't call the backup data "cruft", since without it, it wouldn't be able to reconstruct your previous SP. Cruft to me = unnecessary features / bloat, which uninstall data definitely isn't as long as you care about being able to uninstall it.

One more push-back and SP2==Longhorn?

[Delgul]

Convenient...

Win XP SP2 = Longhorn?

[narratorDan]

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.

Re:Win XP SP2 = Longhorn?

[suss]

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...

[killermal]

Windows users will have to wait till 2004 for a new set of features that can be exploited.

Re:Shock, horror...

[Biomechanoid]

But while you are waiting, you can play one of our games!!

Re:Shock, horror...

[Biomechanoid]

oops, this game .. erm

http://www.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepic s/ photoshop/fakegames/Maka_bsod.gif

Re:Service Pack?

[henrygb]

The fact that there are no problems with XP is probably why the Service Pack is being delayed.

A typo apparently...

[MikShapi]

At least as the other article linked in the first comment of the article in question plainly states.

Re:Service Pack?

[yanestra]

It was meant: "Second Edition", aka. "bugs added, fixes might follow".

Re:Service Pack?

[hplasm]

ROFL....

Going down

[Findel]

With this, and MS getting rid of the Standalone IE and Blaster and all the other stuff it really amazes me that MS stay in bussiness. Its like that old General Motors jokes went. If a car company was run like this they would have a worse reputation that the Larda!

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!

[yanestra]

Parent's author has an idea of the real story. That can't be good.

(Isn't it a good /. tradition neither to read the article, nor to have any idea what it is about, while participating in the discussion?)

Maybe...

[ArmenTanzarian]

they found a new bug, that's created only when patching all of the old bugs. A mutated superbug that's immune to all other... uhh... (troll) get linux.

Re:so...

[Jugalator]

No, it's likely not the final SP to XP, so you should stay with NT4 SP6. Don't consider switching to 2000 or another OS either.

One thing I don't really get...

[Sheetrock]

I don't use Windows XP, but I've worked on trying to patch machines that are running it. What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.

For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems, I had to wade through a multi-page document filled with fluff in order to determine whether or not it was indeed about the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.

My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book. If I used XP, I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention or even my knowledge really to do so... and I'm a relative expert compared to the vast majority of the people who just want to play Solitaire and do their taxes.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[greenius]

Errm... XP does have an automatic update facility, which can be set to automatically download critical updates... you can choose whether to be prompted before downloading and again and before installing... of course many people disable this because they don't want Microsoft installing stuff on their machines without them knowing.

Or, manually, you can simply click "Windows Update" in the start menu/programs, which will determine what patches are available and allow you to select/deselect which ones you want to download and install.

I'm not really sure how it could be much easier???

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Hamon]

There *is* an auto-update "feature" built into XP, but there are quite a few people that are good little doobies and click "no" when they get a pop-up that says "would you like to update your computer." (I kid you not, it was a quote in a story in patching from the last few days) You can set it to do everything automagically, but I think they left that set off so that people wouldn't accuse them of being too nosy.

Personally I prefer to patch myself, so I can see what's going into my machine at my liesure, instead of, in the middle of doing something important.

Then again, I also patch regularly too...

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[winstarman]

The problem is that XP does have the auto-download and install feature of windows updating. But they bury it where no one looks???

It is frustrating, I'll give you that!

And the funniest part... we pay THEM to use Windows!?

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a troll or what? XP Can do exactly what you're suggesting. I'll leave it to the reader to determine if this is a good thing.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[sqlrob]

. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book.

Let's see...

The blaster fix opened a hole on some systems
NT SP5 completely destroyed network connectivity

Tell me again why it should be automated downloads?

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm

Control Panel > System > Automatic Updates > keep my computer updated

and there you go, one built-in automatic patch system, you can set it to just notify you or download patches but not install or download and install them silently, or even schedule any day you like to perform this, no eulas to click on and can be totally transparent

learn something every day huh

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[puck71]

But it still probably needs to reboot...I think what he was getting at was having XP be able to totally patch itself at any time and not disrupt him in any way if he's working on the computer. I don't think it can do this...

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Matrix272]

What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.

Use the Red Hat Network Update Agent sometime if you want to see an updating process that's REALLY a pain in the ass.

For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems...

Going to Google and typing "blaster patch" isn't easy enough? Considering the news coverage it's getting, you'd think that by going to any news site and doing a search for Blaster, you'd get some clue where to look next. Or, you could do what I did... SUBSCRIBE TO CERT. That way, you get the vulnerability notification the same day all the other professional system administrators do.

the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.

Two points I'd like to make. First, when is there a vulnerability that gets airtime on the major news channels (like CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) that should NOT be fixed immediately? Second, clicking 3 times (Windows Update, Scan for Patches, Install) is a lot simpler than the 10 or so that Red Hat requires. (I only have Red Hat Network to compare to, so if there's any better way to update RH8, someone let me know.)

My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach.

You mean besides the bubble that pops up near the clock that says "You have updates. Click here to install."? You'd prefer a popup window that takes up 80% of the screen when it boots that says "Jesus Fucking Christ, update your system, dumbass!"?

I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention...

It already can do that. When you format a new machine, the first or second time it boots, a little bubble pops up near the clock that says "Set up automatic updates." One of the options (out of the 3) is "Automatically download and install patches." For those of us that don't know where to look without formatting our systems, that's under Start, Control Panel, System, Automatic Updates. I prefer to take a look at the updates before I install them though... just my preference.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[krabbe]

I administrate a few XP boxes that were infected by Lovsan/Blaster even though the Windows Update facility said that there were no updates available (before AND after the attack). Also, the "Windows" menu item was greyed (disable), so updates couldn't be selected manually. This pretty much destroyed my faith in the whole automatic updating system.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[edgrale]

Or, manually, you can simply click "Windows Update" in the start menu/programs, which will determine what patches are available and allow you to select/deselect which ones you want to download and install.
I'm not really sure how it could be much easier???


One word: Slipstream.

You take the newest service pack and integrate it with the original media. Then when you install it, it automatically has the service pack installed.

Now what could be more easier???

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[secondsun]

To keep me employed.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Tha_Big_Guy23]

My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book.

They have. There is a great tool for sysadmins in a windows 2000 network. It's called Software Update Services. This is a tool that automatically downloads every patch available from Microsoft and then gives you the ability to mass deploy the patches that you deem necessary for you client computers. We use it at the company I work for and two days after the patch that prevents the Blaster worm from working, all the computers in our corporate network were patched.

The software forces each of the client machines to download the updates and install them at a time you specify, ie. 3:00AM. Any reboots that are necessary after said patches occur then and the end-users have no interaction with the process. Seems like it can't get a whole lot easier than that.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[erasmus_]

What do you mean, they bury it where no one looks? Every install of XP I've ever done, the Auto Update icon shows up on the start bar after using it a short while, and prompts you to run the Automatic Update Wizard. The wizard gives you the option to automatically download updates and prompt you to install them, which is the default behavior and the one I prefer as well. Or you can just have it auto-install them.

So, no one really has to look for it, unless they wish to change their wizard selections. If they do, it's on the auto updates tab in Control Panel > System.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[dnoyeb]

Weird you suggesd RHN is difficult to use, then go on to claim MS automatic update is easy because of those features which it has in common with Redhat update agent.

Maybe you are using the redhat network website as opposed to the Redhat Network Update Agent.

Go to System Tools menu, and start the "Redhat Network Alert Icon."

Alternately, you can type 'up2date' at a command prompt. As usual, seek information in the man page, 'man up2date'.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use Windows XP

Gee, no kidding. If you did you wouldn't be bitching about one of the features that Windows actually has in their OS and works pretty well.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[batkins]

If you're using Gentoo, you're just one command away from a fully updated system: emerge world

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Wiz]

Use the Red Hat Network Update Agent sometime if you want to see an updating process that's REALLY a pain in the ass.

Yeah, I mean, cos typing "up2date -u -f --nox" to update all of my machines packages in just one reboot is really difficult to do. Unlike multiple-reboot Windows update. I hope you don't try to update SP1, IE6 or WMP at the same time. 'cos it doesn't allow that!

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now what could be more easier???"

Sex with a mare?

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Licensed2Hack]

Second, clicking 3 times (Windows Update, Scan for Patches, Install) is a lot simpler than the 10 or so that Red Hat requires. (I only have Red Hat Network to compare to, so if there's any better way to update RH8, someone let me know.)

OK. From a mostly default install of RH7.1 on my Dell Inspiron 5000e laptop (which installed flawlessly btw):

1) I click the little red circle with the '!' on the task bar. This opens the "Red Hat Network Alert Notification Tool".

2)Click "Launch Up2date"

3)Enter root password

4)Next

5)Next

6)Click "Select all packages"

7)Next

8)Next

9)Next

10)Finish

11)Close the "Red Hat Network Alert Notification Tool"

See, that easy. 11 easy steps instead of 3 for Windows.

Uh, shit...

(Non-gamer, so no Windows machine. Is it really just 3 clicks to update Windows? Probably needs at least 1 reboot though. HAH!)

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[Matrix272]

It is a bit odd, isn't it? Except that Red Hat's Update Agent takes at least 6 clicks... one to launch, one to submit the details to RHN, one to hit Next after they list all the packages you have installed, one to hit Next when they tell you what updates are available, one to hit Next after they download the updates, one to hit Next after they install the updates, and one to hit Close (or Finish... whatever) after they're all done.

Windows Update only takes 2 clicks. One to open the window, and one to hit Install...

When speaking of the humans with a lower-level intelligence than ourselves, we DO need to count the clicks. It DOES make a difference.

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[munchy]

maybe

Re:One thing I don't really get...

[tlacicer]

Try apt-get or rcd. I happen to like rcd ( ximian.com )

Odds are

[Hamon]

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...

Re:Odds are

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Odds are

[beggarstune]

Eh, it's just a service pack...

Service packs are Microsoft's intermediate releases. Like when VMS went from 4.1 to 4.2 to 4.3... - MS releases SP1, SP2, SP3. The service packs are more than just bug fixes, they're also new functionaity.

Problems with XP

[Daath]

What?? You mean there are problems with XP?

They pushed it back because they haven't found any bugs yet ;)

Hotfixes???

[winstarman]

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.

Re:Hotfixes???

[_xeno_]

That really has to be seen to be believed. There are more hotfixes off the top of the screen, too...

Microsoft acting odd

[cr@ckwhore]

Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

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

Just an observation.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[yanestra]

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.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[agent dero]

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

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[smoking2000]

I'm no MS fan, but maybe they are accually paying more attention to their program security as they promised. Or they are planning something evil ;)

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[phillymjs]

I'm no MS fan, but maybe they are accually paying more attention to their program security as they promised.

If I had any faith in Microsoft and their "greater attention to security," it would be shaken by the fact that the best way they seem to have found to make their products more secure is by discontinuing them. :-)

~Philly

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[chia_monkey]

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...

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[erasmus_]

Apparently Outlook Express development hasn't really ended. Check out this BetaNews article: MS Backtracks on Demise of Outlook Express.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Zerbey]

Hopefully they're taking the time to fix all of the bugs and security holes and do it properly!

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Cyno]

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.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Licensed2Hack]

Chief Software Architect (or whatever he calls himself) Uncle Bill is too busy plotting the next SCO press release.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right. They haven't been doing anything with Outlook Express except bumping the version number since 1998.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Some guesses based on what I've read and the rumormill:

1. IE is a huge, bloated, insecure, hard-to-maintain product. Time to take the advantages of IE (e.g. DOM APIs) and integrate with the advantages of more traditional APIs (e.g. Win32) In the next year, we'll probably see announcements of a new XHTML-like language that is all Microsoft's own. And we'll probably see it as a primary programming API in the next release of Windows.
   
2. OE is still being developed due to outcry from users. But again, it was an issue of too bloated and insecure: lots of it has to be re-written.
   
3. People at MS are indeed getting more serious about security, but given the company's past history of ignoring such issues, they've got a decades-long uphill battle to fight. Delaying releases in favor of better quality assurance is a must given how upset customers are at the moment.
   

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[a7244270]

Typical /. - try reading.

If you were to take a few seconds to read Microsoft financials, you will see that the ONLY things that Microsoft makes money on are its operating systems, and office suite. It loses (quite a lot of) money on hardware sales.

Re:Microsoft acting odd

[Chester K]

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 to act like more of a blue chip company and less like an innovative (I know, I know, spare me the sarcasm) company.

3 4 !?

[Anonymous Coward]

Q3 2004
Q4 2003

its probably a mistake

funny??

[Anonymous Coward]

this 'joke' is not terribly original or clever. In fact, it shows up every time a microsoft or windows story is up. Why is it always modded up?

It's no better than a goatse.cx or a gnaa or a gay linux conspiracy comment, yet those are modded to -1 in seconds. Talk about two-faced hypocrites.

Re:Wonder what new "features" will be missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evaluated Product Listing (EPL).

Blaster has disproved the mythical Trusted Computing Platform.
Worms corrupting the jump tables, caused by broken security routines that by nature must be ring 0, that accept whatever applications throw at it, are not out yet, but it is clear that all the Gee Whizz bits WILL be broken, and that something more than lip service re security is required.

SSL had to invent a protocol to do this, and MS will have to follow suit. Just one year to acheive this seems overy optimistic, and the performance hit, if they are successful will not be trivial.

Memory fencing and Edit checks will sure break a lot of things, as will removing the BSOD 2nd level interrupt handling. Security or ease of use - pick one.

Competition ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore

well then what am I spose to do with those 10 hours a day then smarty pants.

Re:Competition ruling

[nolife]

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.

Re:Competition ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

And by the way guys, this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore.

Because you say so, or because people do still lauch?

Re:Competition ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Blow me.

Re:Competition ruling

[bogie]

Mindless MS bashing usually gets modded down and laughed at here. Legitimate MS bashing where we complain about things MS still does like embrace and extend, and spread FUD about Linux are certainly worth pointing out. MS hasn't cleaned up its act at all since it was found guilty of acting as an aggressive predatory monopolist so don't expect them to get a free pass here when they continue to make decisions that directly effect the entire IT industry on a regular basis. Many of these decisions have a negative impact that either costs us more money or makes interoperating with their software that much more difficult. We won't suffer that anymore so get used to that.

"It long since ceased to be Redmond that was made to look stupid by these comments,"

Your right Redmond does a fine job of looking stupid all by itself.

If you don't like here feel free to leave. Nobody is forcing you to read anything.

The reason?

[borgdows]

This time, MS is working very hard to release a SP which fixes absolutely every bugs/holes in XP! ... in Q3 2004, they won't have finished yet, and they'll delay the SP2 to Q3 2005 (if applicable).

Re:The reason?

[St_Jaysun]

This time, MS is working very hard to release a SP which fixes absolutely every bugs/holes in XP!

Otherwise known as MSDOS 6.0

Windows update

[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. What's with that?

Re:Windows update

[borgdows]

maybe you're running Linux?

Re:Windows update

[Anonymous Coward]

... or a non-IE browser.
On Windows Update, Mozilla Firebird (which is my current preference for browsing - occasional page render problems, but I find it much better and less crash-prone than IE) - running under WinXP - returns a page asking you to install Internet Explorer.

Either MS's WinUpd servers do something specific clientside that they can only achieve through IE, or it's their way of getting around the rulings on anticompetitive behaviour ("We can't force people to install IE, but if they want to patch their product..."). Haven't tried Office Update yet, but I suspect I may get the same result.

The long and short? It's the *only* reason I keep IE installed - but I sure as heck don't use it for anything BUT Windows Update!!

Re:Windows update

[HouseOfMisterE]

This happened to me a couple of days ago. I was working on a Win98SE box for a friend, and tried to do some updates. I had to close and reopen IE a couple of times before things straightened themselves out. E.

Re:Windows update

[pbranes]

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

[James Willard]

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/

Re:Windows update

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, and I thought it was just the fact that I wasn't logged in under my default xp account, as it worked a couple of minutes later when I switched accounts. I should have known.

Re:now for the real question

[classic66coupe]

no doubt

Well... like they said back in the old days...

[NeoGeo64]

Linux: The ultimate NT servce pack.

'When it's ready.'

[Channard]

Why does this matter?

Maybe they want to make sure the version of Direct 3D it comes with will support Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:3 4 !?

[foxhound01]

Lest you forget, Microsoft doesn't make mistakes

Resignation?

[Anonymous Coward]

1.000.000.000+ people (in china) will not wait for SP2 anymore. So why push the release? Maybe they're removing the chinese language support or SP2 is sooo complete/good that it would make SP3, SP4, etc. obsolete and that is not meant to happen.

Re:now for the real question

[aflat362]

Not every article on slashdot will have profound significance to your life. Get over it.

In China...

[Anonymous Coward]

SP2 is delayed forever :)

Re:In China...

[Anonymous Coward]

read: Service Pack Forever

Windows XP Service 6 Pack

[tds67]

I recommend not waiting for Service Pack 2 and going immediately to Service 6 Pack instead; after installing Service 6 Pack, you will belch a lot but not really worry much about Microsoft's bugs and vulnerabilities.

You may need to reinstall from time to time in order for Service 6 Pack to remain effective.

Java:

[MindStalker]

Wasn't this the release that the courts told them they had to include Sun's official version of Java in?? MHMMMMM!!

Re:Java:

[NorthWoodsman]

I'll uninstall Java the second I get it then; Sun's Java consistently deadlocks my computer for no reason

Service Packs

[chefbb]

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...

Outlook Express

[westlake]

"Microsoft has backed down on plans to abandon development on its email client, because 'the situation has changed'" Outcry forces reprieve for Outlook Express

Re:Win XP SP2 = Longhorn?... um no...

[the_pooh_experience]

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.

Wrong date?

[Flopper]

Heise (german newsticker) thinks that it could be a turner of the numbers. Q3 2004 instead of Q4 2003?
We don't know but the size of the patches I had to download some days ago should be enough to release a new one. /:

Re:Wrong date?

[Flopper]

Having it delayed to mid-2004 isn't satisfyic through...

Crusty code?

[Nexum]

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 shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.

I believe there is a lot of truth in the above, and now Microsoft are getting to the point where their crusty foundations are giving them hell in trying to cobble more bits on at the top.

I mean, look at what Apple has done with OS X, a huge refresh pretty much every 12 months or less. Yet it's going to take us over a year just to get our copies of XP 'significantly' updated? Seems like the dev process is struggling over in Redmond.

-Nex

Re:Crusty code?

[AKnightCowboy]

Their software is obviously poorly designed and developed compared to other alternatives such as Apple and Linux

Maybe they're just slowing down to retool and get some advise on how to make secure scalable enterprise operating systems from their good friends at SCO. Afterall, if it wasn't for SCO there would be no enterprise-class operating systems.

Coincidental

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe intentional, who knows? Definately not ironic.

Re:Coincidental

[Anonymous Coward]

S05E16 was a very good episode, wasn't it? =)

Re:Coincidental

[RPoet]

Oh yeah :-)

Patches, we don't need no stinking patches...

[howman]

We need a OS that works from day one.
The more I read/Install, the more I believe XP stands for X-tra Patches.
Why is it the only OS I ever had that worked well was on my VIC 20?

Re:Patches, we don't need no stinking patches...

[Firehawke]

Maybe my own experience is just weird, but XP proved to be a thousand times more stable than the previous Windows OSes I'd run.

2000 didn't like some of the hardware I had at the time, and bluescreened frequently as a result. ME didn't even finish installing before it trashed my partition to the point it took me a week to recover (the hard way) the data off of the drive. 98 and 95 weren't precisely stable, but I still can't complain too much since they weren't nearly as bad as Windows 3.1.. but I digress.

XP has gone weeks to months without crashes for me. The only major downtime I've had under it was the whole VIA chipset/Nvidia driver fiasco.

Can SOMEONE explain why MSFT doesn't use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has the right idea, with OS X based on FreeBSD

Why doesn't MSFT do this? Imagine the next version of Windows based on BSD, Linux, etc...wouldn't that be the ultimate for MSFT? Doing that would kill Red Hat, Mandrake, etc, etc...look at how many Linux people already like OS X...I just don't get how MSFT people aren't thinking about fighting fire with fire and killing the Linux movement by building a *good* OS based on BSD, or Linux...

Anyone got an explanation?

Re:Can SOMEONE explain why MSFT doesn't use Linux

[LittleDan]

That's a great idea, but that'd be conseding to Open Source, which is not A Good Think (tm) for Microsoft, after calling Linux a cancer and a virus. And what if SCO sued them? I bet SCO is gonna sue BSD and Mac, too. Also, Mac's market share hasn't increaced since OS X. It's just hanging on to 10%. I think Mac will have that same market share forever. And although OS X is good, Red Hat is better. ---- It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

Re:Can SOMEONE explain why MSFT doesn't use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it but that is a great idea.

Holy Crap? You have to be kidding me!

[gosand]

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.

Automatic updates dont have to be a bad thing.

[Darth_brooks]

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.

Re:Automatic updates dont have to be a bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even have a job?

Test updates on Managers and Office Assistants. That's smart. When your boss finds out his computer is dead because of that type of thinking, you better update your resume.

Granted everything they do may not require their machine to function 24/7, but you never want to piss off the person who can fire you. And office assistants. Well, their a dime a dozen, but since they talk to the boss often (and usually gossip a shit load), you don't want to piss them off either.

GEOS patch delayed.

[nlinecomputers]

Yeah but they push the GEOS patch back until 2004. I was so hopping I'd get new fonts for my old Star dot matrix printer.

Re:GEOS patch delayed.

[jwilcox154]

Actually, there already is a GEOS patch, it's called wheels 64 and Wheels 128. Another is MegaPatch 3.

Re:now for the real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one up to this point has. I don't see this changing.

Don't hate on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

(posted anonymously due to the fact that I'm making a post in Microsoft's favor)

How come whenever Microsoft releases a patch people are all up in arms about it, yet my Redhat box gets patched EVERY DAY because I keep getting errata from Redhat Online saying this vulnerability exists etc etc.

Re:Don't hate on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat is the windows of the linux world. Yech.

Re:Don't hate on Microsoft

[MarcQuadra]

Because RedHat and other OSS is 'mostly secure' and they find issues and fix them right away, with 8000 software packages (and many building on each other) it's a lot of patches. Windows is basically starting from a 'mostly unsecure' point and they're keeping all the massive vulnerabilities secret, they release a fix when an exploit is discovered or they feel like it.

Thhink about the dedication someone writing an OSS software package has, when they discover a hole in their code they sit down and fix it. When you discover a vulnerability in Windows (as an MS employee) you have all these levels of management and PR who's interests are in covering it up, especially if it could break APIs or programs.

The fact that there is a greater NUMBER of patches for OSS and other GNU-ish systems is a sign of 'security through dedication' while on the MS side its 'security through management'.

Remember that if MS really started fixing their code there would be patches EVERY DAY.

patch

[smatt-man]

I guess they need some time to write patches for everything that SP2 breaks.

reason: all your base

[b17bmbr]

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

Re:reason: all your base

[Anonymous Coward]

translation: how many third party ISV's can we assimilate

And when we talk about ipfilter or iptables it is about freedom of choice. The fact is that these things do belong on consumer-level PCs and the easiest way is to provide them, is as a part of core system package. Yes, some ISV will bitch and moan about it, but for me this is more like bitching and moaning of the war profiters than anything else. If you are making money on certain war (and it is war ot there on the 'net) items, then don't be too surprised if you will eventualy run out of customers to sell to. It's not fair, but in this instance I belive that M$ is doing the sensible thing.

On the other hand, when linux kernel integrates some browser into itself, making it the major pain in the ass to remove it and replace it with my personal favourite, then I'm talking about killing the competition. Getting rid of competetion is one thing, implementing the easiest possible way of protecting the consumers is another thing.

Anonymous Cowards Unite

NSA chose Linux, not Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

When they wanted a secure OS.

Kinda says it all, doesn't it, when the biggest group of system crackers on the planet flush Microsoft down the toilet.

Re:NSA chose Linux, not Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard, they chose Linux because they had full access to the source code.

I think it would have been *erm* cost prohibitive to get that kind of access to windows, to say the least.

This is a secure OS

What bothers me with "Service Packs"

[mijok]

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, here's our attempt at fixing it" -Packs, or something similar - but not _Service_ Packs.

Re:What bothers me with "Service Packs"

[LittleDan]

Well, I'm just playing devil's advocate, but users do need to be encouraged to download it. But I personally still don't like how they call them service packs either, because it's just a cumulative bug fix, not anything new .sigs are stupid

Re:What bothers me with "Service Packs"

[m1chael]

its not like they service your package...

Interesting Quote...

[(eternal_software)]

From this article...

"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!

Back to school

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the delay is to send their programmers back to school to learn how to program.

It's a hardware problem

[gelfling]

They're just waiting for hardrives to become large enough to contain the SP. The next SP will be approximately 500GB installed, 1TB temp space. It will only be possible to attempt to install it once w/o calling MS for special permission. It will require an 8-way Xeonkroplex 2 trillion Gigahertz machine with at least more RAM than has been manufactured in the history of computing, ever.

"without giving any reasons"

[mnemotronic]

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) 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.

Re:"without giving any reasons"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, it's hype, but never, EVER underestimate the power of the Microsoft marketing department.

Whos marketing department?

Sorry... Couldn't help it.

Anonymous Cowards Unite

0.99 months ?

[DrSkwid]

nt

fiscal year

[aardwolf204]

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 1977. Previously, they had been from July 1 to June 30. In 1977, a "transition quarter" was added to move back the start of the fiscal year; this can be seen in government budget statistics under the designation "TQ."

45 megabytes of critical patches

[Futurepower(R)]

"... several megs of patches..."

To be specific, there have been 45 megabytes of patches for critical vulnerabilities since Windows XP service pack 1. I know this because over the weekend I installed Windows XP from a CD that has SP1 incorporated, and then I went to windowsupdate.microsoft.com and selected all the critical patches.

german govt contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

which cost more money and intend to use vmware to run windows. great idea!

Umm.. No...

[mattyohe]

This wont happen.. on microsoft's beta site there is already a testing version of sp2.. and the fact that I had to install a hotfix to kill a nasty bug of it taking 2 minutes just to sign on the domain. I don't think microsoft will keep that from people... A year for another update? No.. I bet there will be at least a sp1.5 release just so they can get their latest hotfixes out (over 30 of them since sp1!)

Assume this is False

Even more scary thought

[Anonymous Coward]

What if there is a new vulnerability type that they have played hush hush? Something like the shutter attacks or multiple racing conditions all around? And they are trying to fix them all before CowboyNeal hits the fan?

Obscurity vs security baby! They are playing time. All that nice obscurity is supposed to make us Windows users feel warm and fuzzy? When they get busted, they start crying wolf btw.

What about the war on terrorism? *I* would ask for Microsoft not to patch certain things if I worked in NSA at this moment. Really.

Just my fears.

A reason ? It's over.

[Peyote Pekka]

Could it be that it's over and that the pyramid game is done? Maybe I'm reading this wrong but choke me with a pretzel and call me Bush Jr if ole Chairman Bill isn't diversifying his portfolio. [see forms 4 and 5]

The timing of it is pretty rich. What with the worms and the SCO code.

I guess it's OK for him to divest, even the families of the senior officers have caught on.

Maybe its to avoid distributing Java

[steve_l]

That assumes that all the updates take. I had a "critical" IE6 service pack toast IE; my system reboots and explorer wont come back up. Nor does System Restore, since the artwork on that app comes from IE too. Another of my systems refuses to update any more -it'll need a clean build before I can fix things. Sigh.

I wasn't actually expecting SP2 this year, because as a beta tester for the last SP, I'd have heard if they were even thinking of beta-testing a new drop.

One thing nobody has picked up on is why are MS delaying the service pack. Could it, perchance, have anything to do with the judgement requiring them to ship Java with the next Service Pack?

We're all guinea pigs

[Zog The Undeniable]

MS will say the delay is so they can check the SP is fully stable, but does that mean all of those d/ling the individual patches and letting them loose on our boxen are guinea pigs? Of course it does, but what choice do we have with crap like Blaster around?

/me exposes himself as a Windows luser

MOD PARENT DOWN. TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* how many times do we have to see these posts?

The "I know the solution to Windows, install Linux" jokes dried up 4-5 years ago. Give it up, all you are doing is wasting bandwidth.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN. TROLL

[NeoGeo64]

No.

Memory Management Problem

[tetro]

Does anyone know if that memory management problem has been fixed yet? SP1 really made my PC lag like a 18 yr old dog.

woohoo

[ftg888]

Now I get to keep my cracked copy for 1 more year.

x86-64?

[WoTG]

I wonder if one of the reasons is to give Microsoft some time to work in 64 bit extensions. I think 64 bit upgrades are scheduled for an upcoming Windows 2003 Server service pack. It would make sense to do a widespread public test with the code on DESKTOP PC's before letting it loose on servers...

Crash Test

[ratfynk]

I thought The Crash Test Dummies were a Canadian band. Now I find out that they are really Windows XP users, what a let down!

Rumours Confirmed

[mattyohe]

http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=106128903 2

Oh goody, another 18 months of exploitive viruses

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, and I thought Apple was lazy in their updates.

So

[Mistah Blue]

I plan on being on a new machine by then. It will either be an Intel running Linux or a Mac running OS X. My days using a Microsoft OS as my primary OS are numbered. I've already made the switch on my work laptop (running RedHat 9 now) and use VMware for the two apps I need WinXP for. I use CrossOver Office for running Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Visio. I'll either run Quicken from VMware, or use Quicken for Mac.

"A9 00 8d 20 D0- SMS"-fun

[eelko]

Sure I remember 49152, just as well as I can still rememember 53248, 53249, 52369, 54296... Later I went on to the hexadecimal notation. Those were my first steps into Computer Heaven... *sigh*

I even wrote a little C64 machinecode SMS message just the other day. It was way fun to dive into that old machine again... And it was very much fun to send an old friend such an sms and receive one back containing funky little programs with hidden messages. *big smile*

Win XP sp2

[Pisnaz]

First off this is old news. The original delay was due to the ruling in regards to JAVA. We have sp1a which if i recall correctly has no java then we will have sp1b with sun java installed then sp1c with ms java reenabled. The delay is for some reason attributed to the deployment of these interium patches and the subsequent requirement for sun java no java or ms java in SP2. That being said MS has released about 15 fixes since Jan But you must call them to get the patch @ $30 + a call and the risk it may not fix your problem. This is the Bigger annoyance they have patches and will not distribute them as per normal.
Pisnaz

SlowMo Trainwreck

[4of12]

...internet explorer vulnerabilities...

That's indicative of where the business survival strategy is colliding with technical reality.

The more that these add-ons such as IE are bundled into Windows, the greater becomes the overall complexity of "Windows" and the more difficult it is to keep free of vulnerabilities.

If Windows didn't have so damn many extra doodads, it would have a much better showing in the security arena than it does.

But if it didn't add on the extra doodads, customers might figure there's no reason to upgrade/buy to the next release.