Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Delays Windows XP Service Pack 2

Posted by simoniker on from the gone-til-august dept.

Rinisari writes "DesignTechnica, among some others , explains that Microsoft has once again delayed its release of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, though only until August. Microsoft has declined to comment on the reason for the delay. Windows Update v5, however, is online and operational (and works with Service Pack 1!), although not officially so. I know many smaller education institutions are chomping at the bit with the looming release, as they are worried about compatibility with some of the new features in Service Pack 2."

6 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Good on them by Sean80 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I, at least, say good on them for delaying the release if it means they can better deliver on some of the promises which they've made about this pack.

    If nothing else, at least Microsoft is trying much, much harder at security nowadays.

    1. Re:Good on them by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To paraphrase Lewis Black (referring to airport security) -- slower doesn't necessarily mean safer. Promises that don't get delivered don't mean much. Maybe they're perfecting it, or maybe they're sneaking features in...we don't really know.

      How hard Microsoft is trying when it comes to security is strictly implied. Unfortunately, most should have EXPECTED it of them to begin with. "Trustworthy Computing" is primarily a marketing response...with technical consequences.

  2. Bug time by Metteyya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I understood, it means that a bulk of IE users (the ones that don't download small "security updates", but only full SPs) will be vulnerable to well-known bug till (hopefully) August?

    Well, now that just shouldn't even be compared to Mozilla's bugfixes.
    (because who would be able to compare 24 hours with 24 days and not laugh to death?)

    1. Re:Bug time by Loligo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >a bulk of IE users (the ones that don't download
      >small "security updates", but only full SPs) ...

      >... that just shouldn't even be compared to
      >Mozilla's bugfixes. (because who would be able to
      >compare 24 hours with 24 days and not laugh to
      >death?)

      Lemme make sure I got this right. A "bulk of IE users" don't download small security updates, but you think they'd get small security updates for Mozilla?

      24 hour bugfixes are irrelevant to "a bulk of users" if they can't be bothered to download and install them, as you claim.

      -l

  3. Delays by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, this means that Longhorn would likely get pushed back as well (if it ships at all). This gives us an extra month to make Linux a mainstream desktop OS before the NGSCB DRM (the RIAA's wet dream) ensures Microsoft forevermore. Hurry people!!

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  4. Re:Maybe a Sensible Move... by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is also the possibility that microsoft is having a hard time dealing with fixing all the vulnerabilities.

    I wonder to what extent they find that fixing one vulnerability just break, and I mean mangles horribly, some functionality in Excel or Word that everybody has to have (like VBA or sum'thin).

    It's like the domines are falling at microsoft, and that they are starting to realize that a rewrite from the ground up does not look to bad (at least you can start with a sound concept).

    Of course, I doubt they could pull that off, so the next couple years are going to be really interesting.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."