Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Service Pack? (-1, Troll)

jmays (450770) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731436)

You mean 'cumlative patch'.

Re:Service Pack? (4, Funny)

socrates32 (650558) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731444)

What?? You mean there are problems with XP?

Re:Service Pack? (1)

henrygb (668225) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731484)

The fact that there are no problems with XP is probably why the Service Pack is being delayed.

Re:Service Pack? (1)

hplasm (576983) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731501)

ROFL....

Problems with XP (1)

Daath (225404) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731534)

What?? You mean there are problems with XP?

They pushed it back because they haven't found any bugs yet ;)

Re:Service Pack? (1)

jmays (450770) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731453)

err cumulative .....

Re:Service Pack? (1)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731497)

It was meant: "Second Edition", aka. "bugs added, fixes might follow".

Re:Service Pack? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731524)

die u pig
test
test
test

my guess.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731439)

they dont want XPSP2 to get FP.

now for the real question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731441)

who cares?

Re:now for the real question (0)

classic66coupe (684338) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731641)

no doubt

Re:now for the real question (2, Insightful)

aflat362 (601039) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731689)

Not every article on slashdot will have profound significance to your life. Get over it.

Wonder what new "features" will be missing? (-1, Troll)

Marxist Commentary (461279) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731442)

Code Red II?

Nimda Again?

Blaster Redux?

Why does this matter?

Re:Wonder what new "features" will be missing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731585)

Evaluated Product Listing (EPL).

Blaster has disproved the mythical Trusted Computing Platform.
Worms corrupting the jump tables, caused by broken security routines that by nature must be ring 0, that accept whatever applications throw at it, are not out yet, but it is clear that all the Gee Whizz bits WILL be broken, and that something more than lip service re security is required.

SSL had to invent a protocol to do this, and MS will have to follow suit. Just one year to acheive this seems overy optimistic, and the performance hit, if they are successful will not be trivial.

Memory fencing and Edit checks will sure break a lot of things, as will removing the BSOD 2nd level interrupt handling. Security or ease of use - pick one.

'When it's ready.' (0)

Channard (693317) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731666)

Why does this matter?

Maybe they want to make sure the version of Direct 3D it comes with will support Duke Nukem Forever.

C64 SP 920293420 (4, Funny)

cdtoad (14065) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731446)

Due out November 12th 2003

Re:C64 SP 920293420 (4, Funny)

Ryosen (234440) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731543)

Shouldn't that be "C64 SP 64738"? ;)

Without reason? (0, Troll)

DrunkenPenguin (553473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731449)

Without any reasons?

There's always a reason! I think Blaster is a reason enough.

Re:Without reason? (2, Informative)

shird (566377) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731493)

There's always a reason! I think Blaster is a reason enough.

How is that a reason? The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

Microsoft have been talking about making auto-updating enabled by default in a service pack which may be linked to the delay. They will need to make sure patches are installed without having too many adverse affects. And a way for business users to have it disabled because they would typically not want it enabled.

Re:Without reason? (5, Interesting)

DrunkenPenguin (553473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731521)

How is that a reason? The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

Yeah, it was fixed about a month ago, but this recent incident that had a huge effect on their customers _must have_ increased their willingness to improve the security of their products once and for all - thus the delay. Or perhaps I'm just daydreaming.. I don't know.

Re:Without reason? (3, Informative)

DASHSL0T (634167) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731566)

No it was NOT fixed months ago. It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.

I love how misinformation about this gets out, shifting the blame from MS to the sysadmins of the world.

Re:Without reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731616)

It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.
And then what? Everyone was on a long summer holiday so they couldn't patch?

Re:Without reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731647)

It was fixed about 3 weeks before the worm came out.

And then what? Everyone was on a long summer holiday so they couldn't patch?

From what I've seen, the problem hasn't been sysadmins, it has been the fact that if you have a 28.8 dial-up, downloading several megs of patches isn't that attractive or practical for the home user...

Re:Without reason? (3, Insightful)

lpp (115405) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731656)

For Joe User and for admins of relatively small business networks, 3 weeks is ample time to try out a service pack to make sure it doesn't break anything that you rely on and to roll things back if it does. For the admins of larger networks, where there may be an even larger number of applications that have to be compatibility tested, 3 weeks may not be enough. If previous MS supplied patches hadn't fscked up application stability in the past, this might not be an issue, but as they have, it is.

Re:Without reason? (3, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731634)

If Microsoft want to makee auto-updating default for the clueless without offending business users who would (presumably) want it disabled, so they can control rollout of fixes themselves (both to reduce bandwidth by using the full downloads and the software delivery mechanism of their choice, and just because they want to give things a proper test first), why not do what I think they should have done all along - first only make it the default for XP Home Edition, and second make it a configurable during install.

Re:Without reason? (1)

Matrix272 (581458) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731644)

The exploit that worm used was fixed months ago.

_A_ month hardly constitutes months.

Re:Without reason? (0)

fuckfuck101 (699067) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731686)

No they're still discussing this, it isn't scheduled to be in XP ever, possibly the next operating system however.

Re:Without reason? (1)

OfficerNoGun (686128) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731496)

except blaster would be a reason to get a patch out sooner, not later. Plus theres the rumor over at The Inquirer [theinquirer.net] that states theres a mini-sp or sp1a that could come out in a few weeks (because of blaster).

Re:Without reason? (3, Insightful)

DrunkenPenguin (553473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731547)

No, no. The Blaster hole was fixed about a month ago. People just didn't patch their products.

What I ment was that the Blaster incident was probably the last nail in their coffin - maybe they finally had enough and decided to take security a little bit more seriously from now on. That would explain the delay.

calendar? or fiscal? (5, Insightful)

David E. Smith (4570) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731451)

Since the article doesn't include sources or citations or anything, we can't even be sure if they're referring to calendar year 2004, or fiscal year 2004 (which, for MSFT, I believe runs from July 2003 through June 2004).


If they're referring to fiscal year 2004, that's between January and March of next year, which isn't nearly so bad.

Re:calendar? or fiscal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731475)

It's off some product lifecycle page, not in the context of revenue.

Re:calendar? or fiscal? (2, Funny)

znaps (470170) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731528)

Yeah and which calendar - I'm assuming Gregorian, but if they mean the Liberalia Triday Calendar then that's next Friday :o

Re:calendar? or fiscal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731561)

Who the fuck refers to fiscal years when announcing product/patch releases?

Twat.

Re:calendar? or fiscal? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731575)

Microsoft have already confirmed this to be the case. See
  • http://www.neowin.net/
It is fiscal 2004, therefore somewhere in the first quarter of 2004.

Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (5, Interesting)

brandonlp (632900) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731452)

Reasons... who needs reasons? When you're Microsoft, you don't have to give reasons for anything. Especially in a time where you're coasting through a big vulnerability in your operating systems without really providing many answers. I figure by late-2004, a clean install of XP with SP1 should have about 50 additional critical updates for it (... there are 27 since SP1), and the entire installation process will take 2 hours (an hour to install XP w/ SP1 slipstreamed.. and an hour to install the 50 updates). What a shame.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (4, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731533)

Reasons... who needs reasons? When you're Microsoft, you don't have to give reasons for anything.

When you're pretty much any company, you don't have to give reasons to everything you do. At least not publically.

Even Apple is perfectly entitled to do the same.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731611)

I would like to point out that Microsoft has many security holes no doubt, but at least they don't flame the hell out of my inbox like "The Redhat Network". Apparently, Linux has just as many if not more issues around security.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (1)

g0hare (565322) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731618)

Is that realtime or your time? Cuz I can get XP installed and completely patched in under 15 minutes of my time. Realtime under an hour. Of course I do use Active Directory and preconfigured RIS images and SUS, and that might not be your case.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (0, Troll)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731650)

It's a smart move on behalf of Microsoft. They're buying time before the OS becomes further bloated beyond recognition. There is only so much crap you can throw at it before it loses whatever stability users came to expect with the vanilla edition. Service packs break applications, it's not really news. It creates a lot of work for IT personnel to ensure these SPs don't interfere with their 3rd party applications, which in turn produces research data putting Windows in a terribly vulnerable position in terms of TCO compared to Linux.

Already we are seeing major instability in XP, with constant crashes, random reboots and other issues. Just visit any forum and you'll see.

The positive side? More and more people are looking for alternatives such as Linux and Macs. Suddenly, the average internet Joe doesn't fear the scary command line of Linux, thanks to ingenius work of few distributions who made it infinately easier for less savvy users to deploy the operating system on their computers. Users are realizing that the myth created by MS advocates that Linux doesn't do anything aside from giving you the bragging rights to call yourself "1337" is no longer valid. It's adequate and even superior for any modern task likely seen by majority of the computer-using population.

WindowsXP is in war with itself, and there are no winners in this one.

Re:Microsoft doesn't need to have reason.... (2, Informative)

iamthemoog (410374) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731654)

an hour to install XP w/ SP1 slipstreamed.. and an hour to install the 50 updates
This is a total pain in the arse for small OEM's like myself - updating your master technician computer with all the latest patches is an eleven-step process per patch.
Many of these steps involve such things as:
Using Notepad, edit

\Opktools\Lang\JPN\SKU\Pro\x86\i386\Dosnet.i nf
an d
REN Q308387_WXP_SP1_X86_JPN.EXE Q308387.EXE
Here's hoping Microsoft include a "Windows Update" for OEM Pre-installs...

moog

Other windows fixes (3, Funny)

secondsun (195377) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731454)

Redhat [redhat.com]
Debian [debian.org]
SuSe [suse.com]
Apple [apple.com]
Linux-Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com]
Gentoo [gentoo.org]
FreeBSD [freebsd.org]

MOD PARENT UP! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731472)

;) That saved my day!

Re:Other windows fixes (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731527)

I found another one [dunkels.com] . ;-) I doubt it's infected by Blaster, etc, while still offering perfectly functional internet connectivity.

Re:Other windows fixes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731562)

Hoho. How amusing. Why not try us with some of your "why star trek is better than babylon 5" material as well?

funny?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731568)

this 'joke' is not terribly original or clever. In fact, it shows up every time a microsoft or windows story is up. Why is it always modded up?

It's no better than a goatse.cx or a gnaa or a gay linux conspiracy comment, yet those are modded to -1 in seconds. Talk about two-faced hypocrites.

Re:Other windows fixes (-1, Redundant)

jebell (567579) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731583)

I think your sig owes Anne Richards a dollar.

Ironic.. (5, Funny)

AbbyNormal (216235) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731455)

Isn't that the time that "Clean" up worm is set to expire?

Re:Ironic.. (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731471)

Not really, since every day there are many viruses/worms/whatevers out there that have payloads set to go off on that specific date.

XP bug free (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731456)

Of course, the real reason for the delay is that after SP1, XP is almost completely bug free (except for thost pesky third-party apps that keep crashing...)

Re:XP bug free (0, Funny)

DemoLiter (522924) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731514)

XP is almost completely bug free (except for thost pesky third-party apps that keep crashing...)
Some of the most bug-infested third-party apps are :
- Internet Explorer
- Outlook
- Windows Media Player
- Microsoft Office Suite
- XP Network Protocol Drivers
- XP GUI subsystem
- NTFS subsystem

Ahh, but it's nice to know that at least the kernel is bug free for the most time

Re:XP bug free (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731580)

Don't get me started on the NTFS disks shutting down dirty for no apparent reason, then refusing to start at all on a subsequent boot, all for the lack of a god-damned checkdisk option in your little friggen menu, a seperate boot volume, or something intelligent like that. What a friggen hack!

The press release has a typo in it (5, Informative)

Surak (18578) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731458)

As I stated to daddypants, who IGNORED ME ahem, Michael, Wininformant has the real story [wininformant.com] . Due out in Q1-Q2 2004, not Q3-Q4.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!! (3, Funny)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731509)

Parent's author has an idea of the real story. That can't be good.

(Isn't it a good /. tradition neither to read the article, nor to have any idea what it is about, while participating in the discussion?)

Re:The press release has a typo in it (2, Insightful)

jez_f (605776) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731519)

Then why hasn't Microsoft [microsoft.com] changed the typo on this page

Even the press releases have bugs in now :)

Re:The press release has a typo in it (4, Insightful)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731539)

Then why hasn't Microsoft changed the typo on this page
Does msblast.exe, Chinese gov't outlawing internal use of MS software, MS losing German gov't contracts to linux distributers, and court cases mean anything? MS has plenty on their plate, and I think an html typo is the least of their worries.

Re:The press release has a typo in it (5, Funny)

CommandNotFound (571326) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731612)

Then why hasn't Microsoft changed the typo on this page

They've been trying, but their machines keep rebooting on their own for some reason...

Possible reason (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731459)

Maybe it's not ready yet?

Re:Possible reason (3, Funny)

spotteddog (234814) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731495)

When has that ever stopped Microsoft before?

Why? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731460)

Could it be some unknown vulnerabilities that need to be patched or need bugs in their patches fixed? In SP1, they silently fixed some serious "script kiddie" internet explorer vulnerabilities that they would rather not admit to having. Could it be that they're trying to do this again?

And in other news... (4, Funny)

iceT (68610) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731464)

The security community breathed a collective sigh of relief that there would be no new influx of security patches to patch the new service pack until late next year.

Then they went back to tracking the CURRENT vulnerabilities.

Finally!! (5, Funny)

AlexeiMachine (604654) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731468)

They finally understand what a buffer overflow is, and this time, they'll *really* *really* fix all of them.

Re:Finally!! (5, Funny)

hplasm (576983) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731522)

....XP has its buffers removed!!

TaDa!!

...and WinInformant says otherwise (5, Informative)

OfficerNoGun (686128) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731473)

WinInformant [wininformant.com] says that the statement meant Fiscal year 2004, which ends in June 2004 for Microsoft, and that SP2 is due out mid 2004.

Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (4, Interesting)

gokulpod (558749) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731474)

The Register reported on 28 March this year that a service pack 2 build has been leaked [theregister.co.uk] . So if the Service Pack is more or less ready, what is Microsoft going to incorporate into it in 1.5 years ?

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (1)

RealityShunt (695515) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731507)

Digital Pants Management

realityshunt

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (1)

azzy (86427) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731510)

a heck of a lot of extra critical patches

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731541)

Seems like it was a pre-beta build of SP2 to me. Not what I'd call more or less ready.

Re:Register Reports a leak of Service Pack 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731549)

Just like Windows then.

One more push-back and SP2==Longhorn? (3, Interesting)

Delgul (515042) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731476)

Convenient...

Win XP SP2 = Longhorn? (5, Interesting)

narratorDan (137402) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731477)

The story is basically saying that SP2 will incorporate things that MS "innovated" in the last year. Firewalls, anti-virus, etc, all stuff thats also supposed to be in Longhorn. Silly.

Shock, horror... (4, Funny)

killermal (545771) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731478)

Windows users will have to wait till 2004 for a new set of features that can be exploited.

so... (-1, Troll)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731482)

this time, this is the real final SP to XP ? isn't it or should I keep using WinNT 4 SP6 ?

Re:so... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731513)

No, it's likely not the final SP to XP, so you should stay with NT4 SP6. Don't consider switching to 2000 or another OS either.

Excellent... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731485)

If there's no need for a service patch unitl then, I guess there just aren't any major bugs in Microsoft WinXP....

So, we should all be happy, shouldn't we? :)

A typo apparently... (2, Informative)

MikShapi (681808) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731491)

At least as the other article [wininformant.com] linked in the first comment of the article in question plainly states.

Going down (1)

Findel (663041) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731506)

With this, and MS getting rid of the Standalone IE and Blaster and all the other stuff it really amazes me that MS stay in bussiness. Its like that old General Motors jokes went. If a car company was run like this they would have a worse reputation that the Larda!

Maybe... (1)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731512)

they found a new bug, that's created only when patching all of the old bugs. A mutated superbug that's immune to all other... uhh... (troll) get linux.

One thing I don't really get... (0, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731516)

I don't use Windows XP, but I've worked on trying to patch machines that are running it. What I don't understand is why the process of discovering, downloading, and applying security patches has to be as difficult as it currently is.

For example, when trying to find a patch for the vulnerability that Blaster is currently exploiting on many systems, I had to wade through a multi-page document filled with fluff in order to determine whether or not it was indeed about the vulnerability I thought it was, then find a download link, then be presented with a multipage license agreement -- all for one fix.

My thought is that Microsoft would do better to be a little more proactive in their approach. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book. If I used XP, I'd appreciate having the machine automatically seek out the patches I need and apply them (particularly the most critical) without requiring my intervention or even my knowledge really to do so... and I'm a relative expert compared to the vast majority of the people who just want to play Solitaire and do their taxes.

Re:One thing I don't really get... (4, Informative)

greenius (300851) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731551)

Errm... XP does have an automatic update facility, which can be set to automatically download critical updates... you can choose whether to be prompted before downloading and again and before installing... of course many people disable this because they don't want Microsoft installing stuff on their machines without them knowing.

Or, manually, you can simply click "Windows Update" in the start menu/programs, which will determine what patches are available and allow you to select/deselect which ones you want to download and install.

I'm not really sure how it could be much easier???

Re:One thing I don't really get... (1)

Hamon (698286) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731553)

There *is* an auto-update "feature" built into XP, but there are quite a few people that are good little doobies and click "no" when they get a pop-up that says "would you like to update your computer." (I kid you not, it was a quote in a story in patching from the last few days) You can set it to do everything automagically, but I think they left that set off so that people wouldn't accuse them of being too nosy.

Personally I prefer to patch myself, so I can see what's going into my machine at my liesure, instead of, in the middle of doing something important.

Then again, I also patch regularly too...

Re:One thing I don't really get... (1)

winstarman (624536) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731563)

The problem is that XP does have the auto-download and install feature of windows updating. But they bury it where no one looks???

It is frustrating, I'll give you that!

And the funniest part... we pay THEM to use Windows!?

Re:One thing I don't really get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731564)

Are you a troll or what? XP Can do exactly what you're suggesting. I'll leave it to the reader to determine if this is a good thing.

Re:One thing I don't really get... (3, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731572)

. Antivirus software for the platform is capable of downloading and applying updates to itself, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for Microsoft to take a page out of their book.

Let's see...

The blaster fix opened a hole on some systems
NT SP5 completely destroyed network connectivity

Tell me again why it should be automated downloads?

Re:One thing I don't really get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731593)

uhm

Control Panel > System > Automatic Updates > keep my computer updated

and there you go, one built-in automatic patch system, you can set it to just notify you or download patches but not install or download and install them silently, or even schedule any day you like to perform this, no eulas to click on and can be totally transparent

learn something every day huh

Re:One thing I don't really get... (1)

puck71 (223721) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731636)

But it still probably needs to reboot...I think what he was getting at was having XP be able to totally patch itself at any time and not disrupt him in any way if he's working on the computer. I don't think it can do this...

Who cares?? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731525)

Who really cares?

Go use a proper OS - such as any *Nix based OSes.

Odds are (2, Funny)

Hamon (698286) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731526)

They probably want to make their Windows Server 2003 customers feel better by making sure *their* SP comes first. Y'know, to make up for the "but it's secure out of the box!" gaffe.

Or maybe they are thinking about stuffing in the virus scanning "features" they've been rumoring about...

Eh, it's just a service pack...

Hotfixes??? (3, Funny)

winstarman (624536) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731546)

Sometimes it really concerns me when my computers have more "MS Hotfixes" installed than actual programs.

Hmm... I guess the more you install the better it runs. That sure sounds odd.

Microsoft acting odd (5, Interesting)

cr@ckwhore (165454) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731548)

Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

IE development ended (sort of)
Outlook express development ended
Service packs under long delay

Just an observation.

Re:Microsoft acting odd (2, Insightful)

yanestra (526590) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731582)

Something strange is happening at Microsoft ...

IE development ended (sort of)
Outlook express development ended
Service packs under long delay

Just an observation.

They're freeing their capacities for the adoption of a new, brilliant concept, which they have bought from the company formerly known as "SCO":

Unix

It will provide the users with more stability and security.

Re:Microsoft acting odd (1)

agent dero (680753) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731657)

An obvious sign of the end of the world

-OR-

MS's focus on the projects that make the real money, XBox, and MS Keyboards and mice

Re:Microsoft acting odd (1)

smoking2000 (611012) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731674)

I'm no MS fan, but maybe they are accually paying more attention to their program security as they promised. Or they are planning something evil ;)

3 4 !? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731552)

Q3 2004
Q4 2003

its probably a mistake

Re:3 4 !? (0)

foxhound01 (661872) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731681)

Lest you forget, Microsoft doesn't make mistakes

Competition ruling (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731591)

SP1 was mainly motivated by ruling against MS in the states (e.g., the "useful" ability to hide internet explorer if you so chose). My guess is that, amongst other things, SP2 may well be a fix for the currently pending European court case. Hence, they are hanging on to see what they can get away with.

And by the way guys, this mindless MS bashing just isn't funny anymore. It long since ceased to be Redmond that was made to look stupid by these comments, it is now Slashdot itself, and by extension Linux. Which is a shame. True Linux and Open Source advocates would do well to consider some basic notions from the field of public relations.

The reason? (1)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731607)

This time, MS is working very hard to release a SP which fixes absolutely every bugs/holes in XP! ... in Q3 2004, they won't have finished yet, and they'll delay the SP2 to Q3 2005 (if applicable).

Windows update (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731615)

When I click on windows update right now all I get is

Thank you for your interest in Windows Update

Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.

The latest version of Windows Update is available on computers that are running Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000 (except Windows 2000 Datacenter Server), Windows XP, and the Windows Server 2003 family.

That's all it says - no where to click for an update. What's with that?

Re:Windows update (1)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731645)

maybe you're running Linux?

Well... like they said back in the old days... (2, Funny)

NeoGeo64 (672698) | more than 10 years ago | (#6731652)

Linux: The ultimate NT servce pack.

Resignation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6731682)

1.000.000.000+ people (in china [slashdot.org] ) will not wait for SP2 anymore. So why push the release? Maybe they're removing the chinese language support or SP2 is sooo complete/good that it would make SP3, SP4, etc. obsolete and that is not meant to happen.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>