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."
The whole "three out of five machines failed to come back up" after installing SP2 RC2 should not frighten you from trying it.
The original article said quit clearly that the problem they had was that they'd get a bluescreen and "A message stated that 'winserv' was missing."
What the article didn't say was what "winserv" actually is. It's not part of Windows. In fact, it is spyware. Plain and simple.
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.
"imminently"
I heard they were after a "4 out of 5" failure rate.
Working for a broadband provider, I really wasn't looking forward to walking customers thru troubleshooting after their machines were hosed... this delay shoudl buy me enough time to find a new job.
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.
Come on, you've got to give Microsoft some credit. They used most of their resources to get Windows ME up and running flawlessly a few years back. They're only now shifting their man-power from the ME development squadron to the XP one.
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
Rewriting the entire OS? That might explain why there is such a big gap between XP and when Longhorn is coming out LOL.
Space for rent, inquire within
Yeah, once it gets to only 2 out of 5 failing it will be ready for release...
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.
3 out of 5 machines failed to come back up
I guess MS was right when they said that Win XP SP2 is more recure. You can't infect a computer that's down.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Also gets rid of the horrible tagline "It is where IT is", egads!
- Seth
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.
...Linux and OS X pick up three. If they don't get their house in order soon, they are going to have more to worry about than browser marketshare.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
http://hireadesigner.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0 4/08/05/1742224&tid=201&tid=109
Grab the bookmarklet, and with one click you never have to ask for the link again:
http://www.electricstate.com/slashdot.php
(sorry for the shameless whoring.)
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
I refuse to believe this. You must be spouting FUD, you astroturfer!
How dare you imply that something is not M$ Windoze fault, heretic? Everyone knows that Winbloze boxen are terrible and crash, and GNU/Linux boxen own.
Get out of here, M$ shill!
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/
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.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
My Install of SP2 RC1 caused explorer.exe to crash on start up. I also took about 10mins for XP to boot and login. There is no spyware/trojans on my computer.
"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.
stealing the code from the iPhoto 4.0.2 update.
..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.
On the welcome screen, it tells you what you can do to get Windows XP Service Pack 2.
It doesn't say wait and pray.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
"In other news Microsoft has announced that WinXP SP2 has been internally renamed "Longhorn" to more closely coincide with their projected release schedules."
HA! This is a duplicate!
Oh, wait, it was delayed again?!
Every 'softie I've heard from who has seen the Windows code base has said the same thing: it is a labyrinthine collection of objects and subsystems that nobody really understands at a high level. It's actually a miracle that the whole thing builds in the first place. So when they change a few things for a service pack, a dozen other things break.
Microsoft deserves these problems. Their software is too tightly integrated. The benefit of having highly modular software is that problems tend to not spread beyond a single module or subsystem.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Trying to be fair-minded about updates and what we'll call minor rev level releases to the OS (remember all the waiting for Godot that occurred for Linux 2.4.0 and 2.6.0), I think it is a good thing if MS doesn't release SP2 until it feels comfortable that it's ready and secure.
The key difference, of course, is that knowledgeable and concerned XP sysadmins might want to expedite patches to their systems faster than MS would like and be willing to suffer other problems and risks that MS doesn't feel would be good for the general sysadmin population to experience.
Now, if the Windows source tree and nightly builds were available, then those admins would be free to update at their own risk, an option they don't have because the OS source must remain under proprietary lock and key.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Out of all the software compainies in the world, Microsoft is the company that has the resources to build and maintain software right. They definitely have the talent. I think the issue here is big corporation politics. Microsoft should put more of an investment into their public image (at least try to get an image comparable to lets say Google). Sure, it may not give them as big as returns pumping more people into the XP camp (service pak 2) and less into lets say Long horn, but get step one right before going to step two. The trust they will gain by the public would earn them money in the future...probably more than their current practices.
Nuttles
Christian and proud of it
Seems like you just have to remove the "it." prefix in the URL then it comes out okay, "http://it.slashdot.org/.." to "http://slashdot.org/.." for example.
People are installing SP2 internally all over the place and I certainly haven't heard of "3 out of 5" computers dying. In fact I haven't heard anything bad at all.
I have been running SP2 since RC1 with no problems myself.
Too right- my government agency that I'm contracting with is kind of late living up to this menace- I'm preparing a report for Monday on just how many "approved" software packages will be affected if we install internally. I'm only up to T in the 1400 software pagages that are approved for installation on these government computers- and already have 6.5 pages of Times New Roman 14point single-software-to-a-line list of potentially impacted software. The big sticking point is Microsoft SQL Server itself- the automatic personal firewall settings in SP2 limit SQL Server connections to named pipes, which are relatively new for a shop that has been on SQL Server since version 5....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So somehow someone guessing that Microsoft has absolutely no QA is judged "insightful"?? I hate to break it to you, but I'm sure there's just as much testing at Microsoft than in your local linux user group. You only make yourself look a little silly when you pull "facts" like that out your ass.
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 tried to install SP2 on a clean install this past weekend and it completely hosed my XP installation
It's interesting to note that the 'Automatic Updates' service must be set to 'Automatic' and be running in order for Windows Update to work through IE. Even if you choose not to use Automatic Updates (as I have), you *must* have the service running all the time for Windows Update to work (or change it to Automatic each time before going to Windows Update in IE). Rather annoying.
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
That's a stupid comment. Every OS needs patching as bugs are discovered and fixed.
Doh. Is this what a "troll" is?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Admit it. You're new here. There is no "apparently" about it.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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.
Wouldn't it be fantastic if the SP2 updater would first run Ad-Aware or an equivalent and kill all the spywarer on the machine before installing the actual updates? After rebooting, users would be astonished by how quickly Windows would work.
'Holy Crap Maude, my WeatherBug is gone but this thing shore is runnin quick!'
LOL! Not meant negatively in any way, but just wondering how young you have to be to think MS has always tested using public beta's.
IIRC prior to the Win 95 public beta, the term "public beta" didn't even exist for commercial software. Being old-fashioned, public beta's are still a bad idea for commercial software IMO.
OTOH, prior to that time methods for delivering large software packages were rather limited (try that with your 9600 baud modem!).
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.
I'm waiting until SP2 for SP2 comes out.
Yeah, SP2 to XP is to include real multisessioning to Windows! Not just "switch user", one works, one waits, but true "two users at once"! Just like in original UNIX in on PDP-11!
Well, almost. The catch word is "two".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The thing I don't understand is why it takes so long to prevent all machines from booting....
MS'ers are saying it's robust for the OS itself, but that it's going to mess up a bunch of things because everyone and their dog was relying on the loopholes in past versions. And it's supposed to get worse with the next security upgrades I've heard. People may not have their machines die on them (word is that the virii, trojans, and spyware's causing the dying machines...) but you're going to have fun trying to use the apps you do have without a BUNCH of tinkering around with registry edits and all- and some apps may need a patch from the vendor for varying reasons because they're "fixing" a LOT of the OS with this service pack
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Let's see, the girls come back to school, they need computing help, you are the man on the job, and you don't see the opportunity there? Must be a /. geek...
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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...
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.
Reminds me of an old joke. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None. They just redefine darkness as the industry standard.
This space intentionally left blank.