Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has Delayed SP2, Again
I_am_Rambi writes "According to news.com.com "Microsoft has again delayed a long-awaited update to Windows XP, citing quality concerns. The company had planned to wrap up development this week on Windows XP Service Pack 2, but a Microsoft representative said late Wednesday that the software giant had decided that more work was needed on the update before if could be released to manufacturing." Yea, if 3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up, it needs some polishing."
Nice to see a much-hyped rollout delayed as a quality control measure. From Microsoft no less. Step in the right direction PR-wise if you ask me.
If a bunch of machines won't boot -- even if it's the fault of the developers of third-party software as we've seen with faulty drivers impacting Windows 98 -- people will be slow to adopt what is perhaps the most critical software patch the Internet has seen.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
They want to get it right the first time. I congratulate them for doing the Right Thing and making sure they deliver a rock solid Service Pack for the millions of XP users out there.
Before the slashdot editors and crowd crow over this delay, just remember the 503 errors and flakiness this site has experienced since "maintenance" was performed. Don't throw stones in glass houses, kids.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
most people will run anything they're asked to.
Moo.
I read in the paper this morning that SP2 will be doing things like turning on the WinXP firewall by default and gawd knows what else. Does anyone know if we'll be able to easily see all of its proposed "helpful" actions and disable the ones we don't want? For instance, I already have a hardware firewall, so I don't need the software firewall to be enabled.
SourceHosting.net, LLC
Ready. Set. Code.
http://www.sourcehosting.net/
Wait, can you show me some statistics on why people who don't understand what the SP2 patch does anyways, would make this sudden and drastic switch to linux you are talking about?
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
"So the problem, then, with Windows XP SP2 RC2 is that it doesn't work when the operating system has been corrupted beyond repair by spyware that hooks into various DLLs and services in an attempt to prevent itself from being uninstalled."
So if, say, 1/3 of all WinXP boxes out there are currently infected with spyware (probably a conservative guess), then 1/3 of all users applying XP SP2 would crash?
I'd say that makes it Microsoft's problem. Users aren't going to care, all they will see is that before XP SP2 their system worked, and after it didn't.
..I mean anyone else remember service pack 2 for Windows NT 4.0? Talk about run for the hills day when that came out.
I'd prefer they get their stuff together instead of rushing to market. Though personally the service pack thing to me is more of a PITA than patching the various subsystems and then creating a 'roll up' service pack vs. the service pack being the 'holy grail' update all at once breaking/changing things willy nilly (at least that is how it seems some days)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
No, I really don't. So they keep pushing dates back. Who cares? Do you honestly think that the majority of Windows users hangs on the edge of their seat about new updates like a typical geek?
No. They don't. And chances are, most could care less about Longhorn, and even more don't mind that it is pushed back because computing isn't a large part of their life. So it won't matter how fast linux improves, nor how far back Windows get's pushed. -Right now- Windows works perfectly for a good number of people, and it does what they need. There is no incentive for the flood of Windows users to care whether its in 2004 or 2006, because in their mind they know one thing: "We will get it when it is released".
And no, I don't see this as a dangerous time for them.
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
No one has ever been able to accuse me of being a Microsoft apologist. I've thrown my fair share of vitriol their way, but I always said what I felt was justified based on their actions.
In this case, I have to congratulate Microsoft. Yeah, I said it... They deserve a pat on the back for finally realizing, at least in this one instance, that it doesn't pay to release crap software. I doubt this is the beginning of a trend or anything, but for this they deserve a pat on the back.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Ok, so it's been delayed again... So what? I mean, what's the big rush? Security updates are still coming through windowsupdate whenever they're required. Isn't it better that Microsoft take their time with the service pack and make it solid, rather than they releasing it unfinished?
Come on now - you have to give microsoft some credit. This update is a major overhaul to the OS. Look at kernel updates for linux. You have to be careful as hell, making sure all of your drivers are still compatible, libs all still work, etc etc. SP2 is along the lines of a linux kernel upgrade.
You really have to give MS some credit because all of their drivers will be working with SP2, as well as most software. Sure, linux upgrades might come out more often, but you have to admit - actually applying them is a lot more intensive than simply clicking 'next, next, next, yes i will reboot now.'
Anyway, I think people are WAY to hard on MS. For going almost 15 years now and barely breaking backwards compatibility, they seriously deserve more credit than the slashdot crowd gives them. Good luck to em with this new upgrade.
I've run a few RC builds of XP SP2 on 2 different machines.
:)
:)
Configuring the firewall is _easy_.
I too have real firewalls. I leave the SP2 one turned on as well, because it hasn't gotten in the way of anything i do with the machines (yet). I did add a port or two to the allow list, and thats it.
Remember, defense in depth. Having every XP machine tightened up out of the box as much or more as a default linux install is a good thing.
But, you can turn the firewall features off _very_ easily.
I really like the popup blocker and other IE changes in SP2 as well. I've stopped using proxomitron. I see inline ads where prox used to just put [Ad] but that doesn't bother since the super obnoxious stuff is gone. Also, the way IE handles ActiveX controls is _much_ nicer than it used to be - no being asked 23049 times per page to dismiss modal dialogs.
finally, i wouldn't get too worked up over the headline that XP SP2 is delayed. I have some inside info on the delay.. and its (so far) not worth the sensational press its getting at sites with.. ABM slants
People need to be honest. If MS said there's a problem and released it anyway, the ABM camp would grill them for releasing shitty unfinished product. By holding it for a while longer, MS gets grilled for delaying its release (with sideline comments about them being incompetant or SP2 being vapor or what have you). To the ABMer, MS can do nothing right.
(ABM = "Anything But Microsoft"
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
"3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up"
We've just recieved word that 3 out of 5 Windows systems use a commonly pirated CD-KEY.
DeMe
obviously these softies work in little teams mostly independent from each other. The few softies I know who directly work on the OS (and many softies don't) usually work in specialized area.. like the driver subsystem and what not. It is entirely reasonable that a guy who does drivers wouldn't have much of an insight on how other parts of the system work
did you forget to take your meds?
And these kludges are the source of how many security problems?
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Actually, the problem was there was no existing security to speak of. Rather, it was disabled so a lot of programs assumed that certain actions were legal and depended upon those actions to succeed to run. Now that MS is attempting to force some security within the OS, a lot of those earlier assumptions are causing lots of problems, much like the DLL debacle that only took 13 years to even begin to be addressed.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for XP2 to come out. (Yes, it will come out, eventually, but if it even does half of what it was supposed to do, expect much pain/patching of third party products.)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
If you're referring to the /GS compiler switch, then it's pretty well defined: you trash the stack, your process dies. Ugly, but better than letting malware inject code via buffer overflow exploits.
Yes, this isn't a substitute for fixing overflow bugs in first place, but the point is that in a large codebase inevitably there will be some that get missed - so having some additional defense-in-depth is a good idea.
Rag on 'em for security problems.
Rag on 'em for buggy beta service packs.
Rag on 'em when they delat the buggy beta service pack for some final tweaking so that it doesn't suck.
You act like MS is hurting people by not releasing their buggy service pack when they loosly claimed they maybe kinda would.
I'd rather have it come out late and bug free. Or as close to bug-free as it's going to get.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Um... Because they did...
XP is built on the NT kernal, NOT the DOS kernal of ME and previous.
There is alot of emulation code to support, um arguably buggy or unsupported methods going forward.
The problem is really NOT in the operating system, but in default security functionality, overly "functional" common applications, (outlook and IE), an ignorant user base (Really, a FREE kournakova JPG? How did they know?), and an extraordinarily malicious mal-ware community.
SP2 changes default security functionality, and reduces the "functionality" of common apps, even adds some new clever code to prevent buffer overflows if the hardware supports it, because you can't do too much about the user base and the bastards...
Microsoft should put more of an investment into their public image
Bah! Talk about throwing money down the crapper!
There is absolutely nothing that Microsoft could do or say to make me like/respect them as a company, and I'm far from alone in that sentiment. They have pumped out shitty software for too long and made too many false claims about the quality of said software. Hell, I've made a career out of cleaning up the mess when their shoddy products shit the bed, and my boss has built a multimillion dollar business around it. Their behavior during the antitrust trial was reprehensible, and when it was over and they got their little wrist-slap, they were completely unrepentant and for the most part went right back to doing all the same shit that landed them in court in the first place.
Microsoft has earned its horrid reputation, and at this point no PR firm in the universe could improve it (though I'm sure some would love for Microsoft to give them a few dump trucks full of money to try). In light of that, Microsoft might as well put that money to better use and pay a few more people to try to fix Windows XP.
~Philly
That's why I love VMWare's "undoable" mode. You can mess up your machine in all kinds of horrible ways, and all you have to do to get it working again is shutdown and don't apply the changes. Real Windows PCs should come with an option like that.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
They're finding out just how screwy the security system within Windows really is.
SP2 is supposed to be a big "security fix." Assuming that it really is, it sounds as if it's breaking lots of stuff that was previously able to work around existing security to function.
I doubt their screwed security is that hard to fix, but rather finding out how many programs depends on this former screwed security. Which are marked with this logo. I guess this is why the final stages of this service pack has been delayed so much. It doesn't seem like the actual core coding took much longer than estimated, but rather what they're finding out in the QA stages.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Actually, just to back you up a bit, I remember someone I know who works out there saying that they have almost a 1:1 Dev to QA ratio. The industry standard is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 Dev to QA. So they have a lot of QA.
So, my theory is that they've made the OS so huge by integrating everything in that a little change in one place means that a good deal of the product needs to be retested.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
Don't even get me started on DCOM, which is involved in services as basic as the clipboard (that's why WinXP reboots if the RPCSS service dies). MSDN can't even describe some of the DCOM interfaces without making mistakes - they actually miss out methods and stuff. Only God (or Don Box) fully understands how it works, but it does ...