Windows update will be late, Microsoft says

Microsoft said Monday that the long-awaited update of Windows XP will be sent to manufacturing in August, a month later than expected. The product should be in customers' hands later that month.

Windows XP Service Pack 2, or SP2, will contain a number of new features. Most of the improvements deal with security. One new feature, for example, is a Security Center that provides a view of a PC's key protection settings. An improved firewall and other tweaks are also planned.

This is the second time that Microsoft has delayed SP2, which was originally expected in June. Earlier this year, Microsoft said that the update would be delayed until July.

The company gave no reasons for new delay. Last month, a number of Windows enthusiast Web sites reported that Microsoft had run into compatibility problems between SP2 and other software.

Microsoft representatives were unavailable for comment.

In June, the company issued a second test version, or release candidate, of SP2.

The company says it plans to distribute SP2 using a new version of its Windows Update service, its online software distribution tool.

Work on Service Pack 2 has consumed a far greater amount of resources than the software maker originally intended. Company executives have said that work on SP2 required the company to pull engineers off of Longhorn, the next major release of Windows, which is expected in 2006.

Separately, Microsoft on Monday said it plans to begin a new service for partners called Windows Marketplace. The service will include an online shopping and download site that will let partner buy software and hardware that works with Windows. The company is partnering with CNET Networks, the publisher of News.com, to launch the site later this year.

[wrwjpn]

Delay Again??

Why is MS delaying the release of SP2? Because every time they
get ready to release the service pack, another security hole is
found. Will it be released in August, or will it be delayed again?
Let's see if any new critical holes are found. I guessthis is like
the story of the little Dutch boy who sticks his finger in the hole
to save the town. But in this case, it is only going to stop one
leak. What will SP2 do when the other leaks show?

Example, I just reinstalled MS WIN2K and when I went to update,
count them 38 CRITICAL patches. That is not counting the other
8 recommended updates. Most of the MS lemmings say what
there were only 38 patches, but I say only one or two then I
don't mind. When I have to waste three and a half hours just
installing an OS for one user, then I have to consider the
alternatives.

It is time for a revolution. It is time to look at the alternatives.
AND YES, Linux and Mac OS X are very viable alternatives. Just
fire a few of the IT departmental staff and all of a sudden, they
will agree. They may think that Windows is their job security but
let them know that there are other choices and you will make
them with them or without them. They will see the pot of gold at
the end of the rainbow. Peace of mind and maybe their family.

Bill

[Tex Murphy PI]

If it were only that simple

Expecting a switch to OS-X or Linux in hopes of preventing security problems is an oft-cited, and unfortunately misguided way of seeing things.

Viral and worm coders simply act like terrorists - they go for the best "Bang for the Buck" (no pun intended). To put it in simply, the write viruses for maximum effect - the most common Operating System is their default target.

After all, what's the point of writing a virus that only affects less than 2% of the desktop population?

If OS-X or Linux were as popular, you would probably find almost as many worms and security holes in it (because of the sheer number of lines of code in it). Add in the flaws from the applications themselves, and you're back where you started.

This is not to say that MS is completely free of blame here - their philosophy of feature-bloat, poor planning and sometimes sloppy coding is also to blame.

Anyone who coded for Linux would have to grudgingly admit that making an OS that runs on a myriad of hardware AND software is a herculean feat. A feat that Linux is still playing to catch up on.

Bringing all these elements together into an OS that hardly crashes will certainly entail some trade-offs - trade-offs which MS is now looking hard at when it comes to securing the highly vulnerable OS.

To sum it all up:
1) Viral/worm coders write to the most common OS. Therefore, moving to Linux or OS-X for that sake alone doesn't make sense.
2) To get Windows to work on a variety of hardware and maintain software compatibilities, MS had to sacrifice security for compatibility - something that they appear to be willing to tilt towards security with SP2.
3) MS is also at fault for bloating the OS with features that seemed "convenient" at the time of conception, but had no thought whatsoever with regards to the security head-aches it could produce down the road.

The sad reality is, the only way to deal with these security holes are:
1) Patch your OS
2) Hold ALL software vendors liable for some of the more grossly stupid holes in their applications.
3) Force the software vendors to think and code securely.

Delays are good for consumers

I think MS is putting in a good effort to get it done right. I would rather have a couple month delay if it means the patch is better and causes less problems. Alot of people bash MS for the security issues, but when your the main os for the entrie pc world, everyone is gunning for you. No (useful) system will ever be totally secure. As Linux gains more widespread use its weaknesses will appear.

[198775425444042216790779840523]

Microsoft = Vaporware

When will the lemmings learn?

[Steven N]

Whahahahahaa

/snif/

Sounds like Neigbours, or any other cheap soap...

S:<looks serious>
Bill, I have to tell you something

B:<looks wondered>
Mozilla has gone up?

S:<still serious>
No, it's not that, it's our service...

B:<wondered>
Our customers start believing we care for them?

S:<looking annoyed>
No, silly, where did you get that idea. The service pack is delayed.

B: <relaxed>
Ohh...

[frankwick]

I'm no lemming

In fact, I don't like Microsoft at all. With that being said, Windows XP is a good OS. It is the most stable desktop OS I have ever used -- and I have used a lot of systems -- including many that few people know of. (Does BeOS ring a bell?)

Keep in mind that XP was released in 2001. At the time, security was not as large as a concern as it is today. I am holding off judgement on MS until they ship their new OS in 2006. If Longhorn is still full of holes, then I will turn my company in a new direction.

Windows has an inherient disadvatage that Apple OS's don't have. Windows runs on an open platform where there are thousands of vendors creating hardware for the platform. MS has the challenge of building abstract layers of software that allow dispirate hardware to run on a single OS and interact with other apps and devices. Apple, on the other hand, makes 99% of the hardware for its OS. You can see the difference. For XP to be as stable as it is, really is an amazing feat.

[Stupendoussteve]

And?

You totally fail to mention Linux. Which runs on the *same platform* as Windows (and more, in fact), and doesn't have the same security issues (Yes yes there are vulnerabilities, but they are usually far better taken care of and usually less easy to exploit). So where does that leave you?

I'm still happy Linux runs in 64bit while MS plays catchup (XP 64bit beta? Psh).

[katamari]

Vulnerabilities.

Wait until Linux starts getting pushed around as the "replacement Windows" for consumers. My 82 year-old grandmother sure as hell isn't going to have any concept of what a "buffer overflow" is, and she's not going to go fire up an xterm shell just to patch or disable a daemon.

In many respects, Linux isn't "competing" with Windows at all. It's competing against ITSELF. With (presently) 221 distributions, and numerous DOT-COM companies trying to jump on the Linux bandwagon, you're going to see more competition between vendors using the _same Linux release_ than you are seeing competition against Microsoft.

When it comes to security, switching to another OS isn't a solution: it's a cop out. The solution is to train computer users how to properly use and maintain their system: REGARDLESS of what OS they run.

[wrwjpn]

RE:Vulnerabilities??

I am not sure what you mean by this:

When it comes to security, switching to another OS isn't a
solution: it's a cop out. The solution is to train computer users
how to properly use and maintain their system: REGARDLESS of
what OS they run.

I am a trained user and certified MCSE and CCNA. I feel I have
some right to disagree here.

1. Why is it a cop out. If you buy a car from Ford and you have
lots of problems so the next car you buy is from GM, is that a
cop out, too?

2. I train people how to properly use their PCs. But as most
people agree a computer now is just like the TV. It is supposed
to be turned on and work without having to be a MCSE or any
other acronym.

3. What is wrong with switching platforms? If it is better for the
safety of the company's clientel, I say go for it.

Obviously, you don't want to take the time to learn anything
else. You feel comfortable in your net. This net is a MS net which
means you are vulnerable to all kinds of problems because
nobody holds MS responsible.

Bill

[a155mm]

...and Win95 beget Win98 which beget.....

Every version of Windows is supposed to be what the previous version was supposed to be. Which one will ever be what it should? Not SP2, an over blown bunch of add on's which try to fix XP's shortcomings

[a155mm]

...and Win95 beget Win98 which beget.....

Every version of Windows is supposed to be what the previous version was supposed to be. Which one will ever be what it should? Not SP2, an over blown bunch of add on's which try to fix XP's shortcomings. Longhorn will not be any improvement. MS knows that until there is a serious competitor, they can publish anything and the public has to use it. My company finished standardizing on 2000 two years ago. If we can find a version of Linux etc., it will be the last MS OS we use. Ten years of updates and patches are enough.

[frankwick]

not quite..

to say that XP replaced 95/98 is not correct. The reason that XP is so much more stable than the 95/98 code streams is that it is a different product completely. Compare the following two "families" of code:

1. WinME>Win98>Win95>Win3.1>DOS
2. WinXP>Win2000>WinNT4>WinNT3.5x>OS/2

As you can see there were parallel efforts and Windows XP has early roots from a joint effort between MS and IBM. This is where history gets unclear, but I have read where (during OS/2 development) that IBM wanted a robust OS and was willing to wait, but MS wanted to push something out the door asap and that's where they came up with making Windows a shell for DOS. They made millions from this but took a hit with the reputation. Years later, as development continued on the other code stream, the stability finally arrived (thank you IBM) but the MS reputation is still shaky.

"Windows enthusiast Web sites?"

To quote the article, the author says;
"Last month, a number of Windows enthusiast Web sites reported that Microsoft had run into compatibility problems between SP2 and other software."

I don't doubt that this is true...but does anybody have any idea what web sites we're talking about here?

Any help would be MUCH appriciated.

Thanks!

Windows enthusiast Web sites

...and what software (or types of software) had the compatibility problems?
Thanks

It's no an update !

It's not an update anymore ... it's an uplate !

Great Job Microsoft !

[PCCRomeo]

Doesn't Look Good for Microsoft...

I am sick of hearing of Microsoft's delays. After the performance I have seen with Microsoft in this past year, with both the SP2 delays, and the Internet Explorer flaws I seriously doubt I will be updating to "Longhorn". The next computer I buy will be running the latest Mac OS X.