Windows 2000 SP5 Replaced With Update Rollup

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.'"

Comments

Renamed

[BollocksToThis]

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.

Re:Renamed

[10101001 10101001]

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.

What's the difference?

[avalys]

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?

Interesting...

[hdparm]

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

Re:Difference?

[AlexeiMachine]

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.

Change the title.

[narrowhouse]

"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.

Re:Change the title.

[NanoGator]

"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.

"Not" as in "Never"???

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

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.]

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[obeythefist]

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

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[damiangerous]

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.

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[NutscrapeSucks]

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.

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[EnronHaliburton2004]

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...

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[Phleg]

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?

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[burns210]

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

Tried and true.

Re:"Not" as in "Never"???

[c.r.o.c.o]

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.

Autopatcher 2000.

[Nicolae]

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).

Slip stream?

[Stevyn]

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.

Re:In other words...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

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.