Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-tasty-fruit-rollup-though dept.

Ant writes "According to Broadband Reports' news post, both eWeek and TechSpot report Microsoft is scrapping Windows 2000 Service Pack (SP) 5. It will be replaced with an Update Rollup in mid-2005. 'The Update Rollup will contain all security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between SP4 and the time when Microsoft finalizes the contents of the Update Rollup, and a small number of important non-security updates. Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers than a new service pack, there will not be a Service Pack 5 (SP5) for Windows 2000.'"

44 comments

  1. In other words... by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Update Rollup is a half-assed Service Pack.

    1. Re:In other words... by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As of this writing, my original parent post has been moded troll. So be it, but this wasn't a troll, I was serious. It looks like Microsoft wanted a fancy new term for a light-weight service pack. Pointless if you ask me. It just sounds like an excuse to put less effort into supporting one of their legacy products.

      Explain to me again the value of buying commercial software if it becomes abandon-ware less than 5 years after its release? 5 years seems like a long time in the software world, but I would be super pissed if I couldn't get parts for my 5 year old car.

    2. Re:In other words... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
      In other words, MS has to have something to keep admins busy enough to keep them from having time to experiment with platforms BSD, Linux, OS X or applications like OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird, Firefox, Opera, etc.

      Most businesses are finding that MS-Windows 2000 meets their needs better than XP. MS-Windows XP never really caught on except in OEM sales.

      This is a good warning, though. A five year product life cycle kind of defeats any theoretical advantages that should come from having the backing of a large company. If this had happended to RedHat, Suse, Mandrake or any other GPL'ed tool any one company could pick up the ball and run with it. Or a consortia could be formed to continue support.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    3. Re:In other words... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      Explain to me again the value of buying commercial software if it becomes abandon-ware less than 5 years after its release? 5 years seems like a long time in the software world, but I would be super pissed if I couldn't get parts for my 5 year old car.

      Can you imagine wandering around the shelves of a breaker's yard looking for replacement parts for a 5 year old OS??? that appears to be what computer fairs are nowadays...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    4. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Update Rollups are Quarter-assed, as Service Packs are half-assed.

  2. Renamed by BollocksToThis · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet the Market Research department has decided that "Service Pack" makes people associate Windows with buggy, insecure and untrustworthy, while "Update Rollup" makes people think of Uncle Toby and fruity snacks.

    --
    This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    1. Re:Renamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nail, Nose, Hit, Needle, Something, Point, Made.

    2. Re:Renamed by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only real question is that if in 4 years the company that makes Fruit Rollups will be able to sue Microsoft (and win) for defamation of character.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    3. Re:Renamed by eneville · · Score: 1

      To some, patch means buggy, and service pack means free update

      --
      Why UNIX?
  3. What's the difference? by avalys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there a difference in anything but name between a "Service Pack" and "Update Rollup"?

    Or has Microsoft decided that they don't like the term "Service Pack" anymore?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:What's the difference? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      maybe service pack would have included some needed features like their bluetooth stack? now if you want some sense to bluetooth on windows you'd have to basically get xp and sp2(and even then cross your fingers and sacrifice a goat just to even the odds a little).

      update rollup sounds like just the security updates rolled into one big install.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:What's the difference? by blincoln · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is there a difference in anything but name between a "Service Pack" and "Update Rollup"?

      In my experience, a Service Pack would generally include new features, whereas a Rollup package is just a bunch of bug fixes that install all at once.

      This move seems to me to be MS trying to wean people away from 2k, so they can make more money from XP, 2003, etc. For most people, 2k is good enough, but it won't be for much longer if it's not kept supported with service packs.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:What's the difference? by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Actually, service packs should never contain new functionality. The whole idea of a service pack is to fix problems - new features mean new problems.

      Citrix has the right idea, they release service packs and "feature releases".

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    4. Re:What's the difference? by qkan · · Score: 1

      According to MS itself, an Update Rollup is "a tested, cumulative set of hotfixes, security updates, critical updates, and updates packaged together for easy deployment. A rollup generally targets a specific area, such as security, or component of a product, such as Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS)." http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#up date_rollup

    5. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they can pry the installation CD of win2k from my dead, cold hands.

    6. Re:What's the difference? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yes, but _ms_ service packs regularly contain some 'new' stuff and bigger changes than just updates.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:What's the difference? by freakmn · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that it is a pain (or perhaps impossible) to slipstream a Update Rollup. That just sucks for people who want the latest fixes on a clean install. Somebody please prove me wrong, I want it to be easy, or at least possible to do!

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  4. Interesting... by hdparm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...how they always seem to know what best fits our needs and then (6 months later) give us what we need now.

  5. Difference? by Apreche · · Score: 1, Redundant

    What's the difference between a service pack and an update rollup?

    I mean, doesn't a service pack usually imply a group of patches all bundled into one. And an update rollup is... the same thing. So, besides terminology and semantics, is there any realy difference between the two?

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Difference? by AlexeiMachine · · Score: 5, Informative

      A Service Pack includes all previous Service Packs. A rollup does not.

      So the procedure to install 2000 will be: Win2000, SP4, Rollup, recent patches.

    2. Re:Difference? by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      The difference is the rollup has a fresh fruity flavor with vitamin C added! :)

      "All right, it's bloody Albatross flavor then."

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    3. Re:Difference? by sr180 · · Score: 1
      But that is not always true. I found out the hard way that Service Pack 6a for windows NT misses out some crutial updates for HAL to allow multi monitors that came out in service pack 3.
      Install SP3, then SP6a, multi monitor will work.
      Install only sp6a, multi monitor will not work.
      Bad luck in my case, I couldnt un-install 6a, but I couldnt install sp3. *Reformat* time.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    4. Re:Difference? by AlexeiMachine · · Score: 1

      Well, this is Microsoft we're talking about. A Service Pack without bugs wouldn't really be a Microsoft Service Pack now would it?

      But seriously, the Service Pack situation with NT4 was pretty disastrous. SP4 did some funky stuff with the SAM that couldn't be rolled back, etc.

      We haven't seen similar problems with Windows 2000 (yet). But since they're won't be any more SPs, I guess they nailed it for that version.

  6. Change the title. by narrowhouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Microsoft wants you to upgrade."

    Get the hint, you haven't paid for the privelege of a MS operating system in at least 3 years and they want more money.

    --


    Insert pithy comment here.
    1. Re:Change the title. by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Get the hint, you haven't paid for the privelege of a MS operating system in at least 3 years and they want more money."

      Well he's got a point. Adobe, for example, asks you politely not to upgrade because you've already given them enough money.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Change the title. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      But of course Adobe doesn't ask you to pay for bug fixes.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  7. Microsoft Faith by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers...

    Do they believe in Santa Claus, too?

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  8. "Not" as in "Never"??? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will better meet the needs of customers than a new service pack, there will not be a Service Pack 5 (SP5) for Windows 2000.

    Does this mean there will never be an SP5?

    I was loading some new boxes yesterday, and, even after SP4, Windows Update wanted to install well in excess of 20 patches [which couldn't be done in one fell swoop because IE6 SP1 insists on being installed solo].

    My guess is that eventually Redmond will listen to their customers on this one.

    PS: Anyone wanna bet that this is due to that gosh-awful security update from last March that hosed so many systems? [Completely screwed all our machines with VIA chipsets.]

    1. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "PS: Anyone wanna bet that this is due to that gosh-awful security update from last March that hosed so many systems? [Completely screwed all our machines with VIA chipsets.]"

      Uh, what? What does a broken update have to do with rollups or service packs?

    2. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by obeythefist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not quite sure if you read the article there - the rollup incorporates all security patches that were released after SP4. So theoretically, when you install your Win2K box, you then apply SP4, then apply the security rollup, then visit Windows Update and there should be few or no new security patches.

      However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999? Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999? Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board. Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system. Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    3. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by damiangerous · · Score: 4, Insightful
      However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?

      Because a whole lot of people are running a computer from that era? Because you might already have plenty of licenses and Win2k is perfectly good functionality wise? (meaning you only need to plug security flaws, which are product defects anyway)

      Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999?

      If I was getting it from a distro that backported security patches, sure, why not? There are plenty of production machines that have run that long. Heck I just installed Red Hat 6.2 on an ancient Thinkpad because it was the most appropriate option.

      Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board.

      But we're not talking about servers.

      Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system.

      Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2

      Well, no, Win2k is the previous version of Windows. Red Hat 5.2 is, what, 5 major versions back? (hard to tell with Enterprise and Fedora) They still support back to version 9, which is still prior to both Enterprise versions and Fedora. It's not at all unreasonable to ask that the current version and one prior version be keep up to date. It doesn't matter how old it is if it was the only thing being kept up to date all that time. A Linux distro from 1999 could be kept current if it was the only version being maintained. Heck ask a Gentoo user, you could install any version of it you find and get it right up to speed. The reason Red Hat 5.2 isn't updated is because they would have to update 5 different versions each time if they went that far back. Not everyone wants or needs to be cutting edge.

      Also, considering Microsoft will still sell it to you right now, they should damn well support it.

    4. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by maskedbishounen · · Score: 1

      We're talking servers here, right?

      I certainly hope you don't just slap on the freshest updates, patches, or OSes on yours. I know that I certainly do not on mine, nor know any sane admin who will.

      Would I install a kernel from 1999? 'Course not-- however, I would apply a patched version based on the said code. Is this not, in reality, what 2000 + SP5 would have been?

      It's oft compared to buying cars. I want something that I know will work five years from now, so what do I do? I buy a car from five years ago brand new, that's been sitting around on some lot. Sure, it will probably require a bit of maintenance as it's aged a bit already, but it's already proven itself reliable (based on experience of others, obviously). I don't need the latest and greatest, I need something I can depend on. :)

      If you're happy with 2003, good for you, though. I can happily admit I don't play the Windows Server game, but to each his own.

      Oh, and the different between MS and RedHat? Microsoft actually codes the silly thing; RH only packages it, along with some customized utilities. I expect some support from the creator of a package, not the distributor. But that might just be me.

      --
      "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    5. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      You might not like it, but Windows 2000 is going to be around for a very long time. Most users are very happy with it, it does everything they need it to, and Microsoft has extended the support window to 2010.

      In retrospect, Win 2000 has proven to be incredibly more mature than the Linux OSes from the same period. Some day there will be a Linux Distro that people will WANT to run for 10 years.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    6. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?

      Because they are running computers from that era?

      Upgrading my small office of 40 desktops from Windows 2000 to Windows XP would cost about $40-80,000 (40 new desktops at $1000-2000 a pop, including labor, training, etc). I don't have that kind of money...

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    7. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      I should therefore expected to have my Windows 98 machine "forcibly upgraded", I suppose. And here I am, without a spare stick of RAM and a sub-2ghz processor.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    8. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by Phleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever worked in a corporate environment? I can give you plenty of reasons. Application support. Vendor-provided machines. Testing of new Operating Systems. Cost of rolling out upgrades for every machine, when the current OS works fine. Unexpected hiccups in the migration. Any of these sound familiar?

      --
      No comment.
    9. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by burns210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?"

      Tried and true.

    10. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by c.r.o.c.o · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm still running Win2k Pro on my Compaq Evo N600c laptop with a P3m 1.2Ghz and 768Mb RAM. I ran WinXP Pro on it for about a year, and while it was fast enough, it always had problems that only a reinstall would fix. But every reinstall would bring along new problems. Just as an example, sometimes it would not resume from stand by, other times it simply would not boot, apps would not start or take a very long time to do so, etc.

      I've reinstalled XP Pro about 5 times because of those issues, and every time I had the latest drivers, patches, service packs, etc, including all drivers available from Compaq's website. I did not have spyware or virii on the computer, it was simply an issue of my laptop not being compatible with XP Pro.

      Less than a month ago I gave up on winXP and installed Win2k Pro, and it's been rock solid since. Not a single problem, and all the apps are behaving properly. This is why I choose to run a 5 year old OS. I just want to use the laptop, without worrying about fixing problems and reinstalling every couple of months, especially since I don't care about the latest bells and whistles. I still have XP Pro SP1 and Slack 10 on my desktop, so it's not as if I insist on running Win2k.

    11. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Curiously, Windows XP will run nicely on anything 400MHz and above.

      If you had a choice between 98 and XP, which would you choose?

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    12. Re:"Not" as in "Never"??? by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I work for CSC on a pretty big international contract. All our new installs for this customer are Win2K3. We've just finished ported our client over to a Windows 2K3 active directory structure.

      I suppose what we really are asking here is not "do you work in a corporate environment" but "do you work in a professional, adaptive, progressive corporate environment, or in a penniless miserly hovel with no agenda for IT future proofing?".

      Application and vendor support still tie us down to some older OS's in some environments, but those environments are firewalled away from the main production environment to minimise the security risk.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  9. Autopatcher 2000. by Nicolae · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously... just use Autopatcher 2000. Same functionality as a "Update rollup", but with some tweaks and such. It also means bringing Windows 2000 almost completely up-to-date (If you have SP4 slipstreamed.. if not, you can download the network install and put it on the autopatcher 2k CD in the Service Pack dir) before letting it touch the 'net. (I say almost - the only update I needed was for IE6, which I only use for Windows Update).

  10. Slip stream? by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can it still be slip streamed onto an existing Windows 2000 cd like SP4? It's easy to make and convenient to have an installation CD that already has the updates when you're installing a new system. Installing service packs can take a while and can cause problems, but I haven't had trouble with slip streaming in the updates on windows 2000 and XP.

  11. Didn't they same the same thing about NT 4.0? by moreati · · Score: 1

    I didn't follow the NT line back then, but from the stories I've heard MS said SP4 would be the last one made, thrn, eventually they released 5, 6 & 6a. Can anyone from the period confirm this?

    My personal view is the marketting dept will have had a hand in this, Win 2K is now nothing but a cost to Microsoft. The more customers they can convince to upgrade through uncertainty about maintenance the better. However we'll end up with SP5 shortly, due to 'good will' and 'popular demand'

    Alex

    PS Having said all that, Microsoft's support periods are greater than most Linux distributors - 5 years+ for MS Windows vs 3 years for SLES or RHEL.

    1. Re:Didn't they same the same thing about NT 4.0? by Mendy · · Score: 1

      It happened pretty much the same as this with NT4 - SP7 was promised but then decided not to release it (on Earth anyway) and instead issue a security rollup which was according to them what customers wanted.

      While googling for the above link I came across a quote from a consultant

      "The thing is, they've been promising us an SP7 for NT since before Windows 2000 shipped, so how am I supposed to believe them when they promise us additional service pack releases for Win2K after Windows XP ships?"

      How perceptive of him :)